Pope Leo XIV says "Negotiation" is a “better kind of politics” capable of seeking the common good...to contribute to the diplomacy of peace that our world needs" FULL TEXT to ‘Fratelli Tutti’ Synodal Meeting
.png)
Pope Leo XIV met with participants in the Fourth ‘Fratelli Tutti’ Synodal Meeting, in audience in the Vatican today, Saturday 12 September 2026. The event had been held from Thursday 10 to Saturday 12 September in Rome. In his wide-ranging address, delivered both in Spanish and in English, the Pope greeted representatives of the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council, the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE LEO XIV
TO THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE MEETING
‘FRATELLI TUTTI: NORTH-SOUTH SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL DIALOGUE’
Consistory Hall on Saturday, 12 September 2026
______________
The res novae of our time set in motion a true movement of “reflection and action” (MH, 174), which must “be guided with foresight: by institutions capable of regulating without stifling, and protecting without taking over; by businesses that recognize work and dignity as measures of success; by intermediary organizations and educational communities that rebuild trust and relationships; and by citizens who cultivate responsibility, moderation, discernment and a sense of truth” (MH, 181).
“Do not be afraid” is an exhortation that my predecessors repeated at decisive moments in the life of the Church. I would also like to make it my own today, since “we should not be intimidated by tensions or differences because they can become creative forces when guided by shared responsibility” (MH, 13).
The Church’s Social Doctrine offers invaluable assistance in this regard. Many of the organizations present here are familiar with it, are studying it and are helping to spread it. It “is not a handbook of principles and norms to be applied, but a process of shared discernment” (MH, 27). Its principles do not replace the decisions that you must take; rather they offer criteria for judging whether these decisions truly respect human dignity and serve the common good.
For this reason, the value of any points of consensus that can be reached will not be measured solely by the number of people who endorse them. They will be recognized by the interests that they are able to protect and, in particular, by the impact that they have on the lives of those who have the least power to defend themselves.
The principles of social justice provide a decisive criterion here. A social, economic and political order can truly be called humane when it allows everyone — “particularly the weakest — to live a truly dignified life, without leaving anyone behind” (MH, 77).
At the end of Magnifica Humanitas I reflected on the figure of the prophet Nehemiah. Faced with a Jerusalem in ruins, he listened to the suffering of his people, brought it before God, discerned what needed to be done, sought the necessary resources and organized a project that could only be carried out with the participation of many people (cf. MH, 241).
I would like to propose to you that same image for the work that you are doing. Likewise, in our time, great edifices have come crashing down wherever progress ceases to serve the person, where work loses its dignity, where entire communities are cast aside or where technology ends up deepening the divisions that it should be helping us to overcome.
Like Nehemiah, you are to “enter the construction sites of history — research laboratories, technology companies, schools, the media, institutions, local communities — in order to rebuild what has collapsed and to protect what is threatened” (MH, 241). Moreover, I invite you to allow yourselves to be challenged by the signs of the times and embrace the contributions of the sciences, of cultures and of human experiences to discern possible paths forward.
Negotiation is part of that work and is part of a “better kind of politics” capable of seeking the common good above particular interests (cf. FT, 154). Therefore, I encourage you to cultivate a healthy “culture of negotiation” (cf. MH, 221) which is capable of opening paths where differences seem to close off every possibility of encounter. In this way, you will also be able to contribute to the diplomacy of peace that our world needs.
Nehemiah did not rebuild Jerusalem alone. He called upon his people, and each person worked on the section they were responsible for building. It is now up to you to recognize what part of this shared work has been entrusted to you. May the progress of our time not leave new ruins in its wake, and may whatever we build truly be a home and a refuge for all, beginning with those most in need.
Thank you very much.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Peace be with you.
I cordially greet Your Eminences and Excellencies, as well as the ecclesiastical authorities from the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council, the Ecclesial Conference of the Amazon, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I appreciate the steadfastness with which you—together with the Pontifical Commission for Latin America—have sustained this journey of North-South socio-environmental dialogue for five years.
I also acknowledge the presence and support of representatives from international organizations, regional cooperation banks, the business community, and the foundations that have chosen to join this journey.
I also welcome the presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries-general of trade unions and employers' associations from the Americas, as well as the leaders of ecclesial networks in Latin America and the Caribbean, organized communities in North America, and university networks from both hemispheres. Your presence reflects a commitment to continuing a dialogue that can translate into a path toward development models that are more humane, sustainable, and grounded in solidarity—models capable of protecting the dignity of every person and paying special attention to those at risk of being left on the margins.
This meeting is of particular interest due to the wide range of sectors represented and the responsibility many participants hold in areas crucial to social, economic, and cultural life. Precisely for this reason, this space for dialogue can help us address, with greater realism, the challenges that affect our shared future.
At the beginning of my pontificate, when meeting with the College of Cardinals, I recalled certain fundamental aspects of the journey the universal Church has been following for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Among these, I highlighted the need for a "courageous and trusting dialogue with the contemporary world in its various components and realities" (Address to the College of Cardinals, May 10, 2025). This dialogue is part of the very mission of the Church, which has received from Jesus Christ the mandate to proclaim the Gospel to all peoples and to bring its light to the concrete realities of every age. Its pastoral character is intrinsic to its nature, committing it to confront the reality of the men and women to whom it is sent. Furthermore, the Gospel imperative to care for the poor demands that this gaze be directed particularly toward those who suffer most acutely the consequences of social, economic, and technological changes.
Just recently, I recalled that the Church is called to "embrace reality and also to unmask the contradictions characterizing the personal and social life of the contemporary world"—including those that can accompany scientific and technological progress, which opens up unprecedented possibilities (Catechesis, September 2, 2026).
Such a commitment is rooted in the very mystery of the Christian faith. God has entered our history. In Jesus Christ, He has assumed our humanity and entrusted the Church with the mission of proclaiming the Gospel amidst the real circumstances in which peoples live. From the Scriptures to the great Fathers of the Church—such as Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine—Christian tradition has learned to discern within history what truly serves humanity and what ultimately turns against it.
The novel developments of our time thus place a shared responsibility upon us. In *Magnifica humanitas*, I sought to express this using a biblical image: we face the possibility of either "raising a new Tower of Babel or building the city where God and humanity dwell together" (no. 1). Therefore, in the face of technological development, the decisive question is not simply whether we accept or reject certain tools, but rather what kind of humanity we wish to build and what place each person will hold within it. A responsibility of such magnitude exceeds the capacity of any single institution acting in isolation. It is therefore necessary to reclaim, with renewed vigor, the logic of subsidiarity (cf. no. 13), recognizing the specific responsibility of each actor while simultaneously acknowledging the need to work together.
I am pleased that the Church in the Americas has fostered this space for encounter and cooperation to advance the North-South Shared Responsibility Agenda for Multisectoral Cooperation. When public institutions, businesses, workers, universities, communities, and social organizations share their knowledge, capabilities, and resources in the service of the common good, a conviction—one that has matured within the Church’s social doctrine and been developed in various ways by my predecessors—takes concrete form: major social challenges require shared responsibility, participation, and collaboration among the various sectors of society. Pope Francis expressed this same conviction when speaking of "social friendship" (cf. *FT*, 154).
An agenda of shared responsibility can help ensure that legitimate differences do not devolve into fragmentation. In my first Encyclical, I wished to emphasize that pluralism requires a principle of unity—one that allows it to be oriented toward common foundations and the ultimate purpose of the human person (cf. MH, 10). The Church’s synodal experience offers a lesson here: truly listening to differences does not mean diluting them, but rather learning to discern them and—starting from them—seeking what can serve the common good. This exercise is particularly necessary at a time when polarized narratives are instantly amplified and when confrontation can easily become an instrument of power (cf. MH, 190). In the face of this dynamic, the very fact that such diverse individuals and institutions have decided to sit at the same table entails a responsibility. True dialogue demands more than mere cordiality; it requires staying engaged in the conversation even when conflicting interests arise and when decisions call for concrete sacrifices.
For believers, moreover, fraternity finds its ultimate foundation in a truth that precedes any agreement: we share the same Father. As *Fratelli tutti* reminded us, "without an openness to the Father of all, there will be no solid and stable grounds for the call to fraternity" (no. 272).
The res novae of our time set in motion a true movement of “reflection and action” (MH, 174), which must “be guided with foresight: by institutions capable of regulating without stifling, and protecting without taking over; by businesses that recognize work and dignity as measures of success; by intermediary organizations and educational communities that rebuild trust and relationships; and by citizens who cultivate responsibility, moderation, discernment and a sense of truth” (MH, 181).
“Do not be afraid” is an exhortation that my predecessors repeated at decisive moments in the life of the Church. I would also like to make it my own today, since “we should not be intimidated by tensions or differences because they can become creative forces when guided by shared responsibility” (MH, 13).
The Church’s Social Doctrine offers invaluable assistance in this regard. Many of the organizations present here are familiar with it, are studying it and are helping to spread it. It “is not a handbook of principles and norms to be applied, but a process of shared discernment” (MH, 27). Its principles do not replace the decisions that you must take; rather they offer criteria for judging whether these decisions truly respect human dignity and serve the common good.
For this reason, the value of any points of consensus that can be reached will not be measured solely by the number of people who endorse them. They will be recognized by the interests that they are able to protect and, in particular, by the impact that they have on the lives of those who have the least power to defend themselves.
The principles of social justice provide a decisive criterion here. A social, economic and political order can truly be called humane when it allows everyone — “particularly the weakest — to live a truly dignified life, without leaving anyone behind” (MH, 77).
At the end of Magnifica Humanitas I reflected on the figure of the prophet Nehemiah. Faced with a Jerusalem in ruins, he listened to the suffering of his people, brought it before God, discerned what needed to be done, sought the necessary resources and organized a project that could only be carried out with the participation of many people (cf. MH, 241).
I would like to propose to you that same image for the work that you are doing. Likewise, in our time, great edifices have come crashing down wherever progress ceases to serve the person, where work loses its dignity, where entire communities are cast aside or where technology ends up deepening the divisions that it should be helping us to overcome.
Like Nehemiah, you are to “enter the construction sites of history — research laboratories, technology companies, schools, the media, institutions, local communities — in order to rebuild what has collapsed and to protect what is threatened” (MH, 241). Moreover, I invite you to allow yourselves to be challenged by the signs of the times and embrace the contributions of the sciences, of cultures and of human experiences to discern possible paths forward.
Negotiation is part of that work and is part of a “better kind of politics” capable of seeking the common good above particular interests (cf. FT, 154). Therefore, I encourage you to cultivate a healthy “culture of negotiation” (cf. MH, 221) which is capable of opening paths where differences seem to close off every possibility of encounter. In this way, you will also be able to contribute to the diplomacy of peace that our world needs.
Nehemiah did not rebuild Jerusalem alone. He called upon his people, and each person worked on the section they were responsible for building. It is now up to you to recognize what part of this shared work has been entrusted to you. May the progress of our time not leave new ruins in its wake, and may whatever we build truly be a home and a refuge for all, beginning with those most in need.
Thank you very much.
Comments