The Catholic Church’s Diplomatic Calibration in Conflicts: The Example of Venezuela

The irony of history is that the American show of force in Venezuela on the night of January 3-4 marked the beginning of a new episode of “planetary destabilization” against which Pope Leo XIV had warned a few days earlier, in his Message for the 59th International Day of Peace on January 1, 2026.

“In relations between citizens and rulers,” the Sovereign Pontiff affirmed, “it has come to be considered a fault not to prepare sufficiently for war, to react to attacks, to respond to violence. Far beyond the principle of legitimate self-defense, this antagonistic logic is, on a political level, the most current factor in a planetary destabilization that is becoming more dramatic and unpredictable every day.”

In terms of “destabilization” and “unpredictability,” the United States couldn't have done better!

Certainly, Venezuela had been “marked for so many years by drug trafficking and corruption,” according to Father Georges Engel, a missionary priest quoted by Olivier Bonnel on Vatican News. As a result, no one will truly regret Nicolas Maduro, elected on January 10, 2025, for a third term deemed illegitimate by the majority of the international community. Nevertheless, the actions of the United States are not justified.

In fact, reacting to the show of force, during the Angelus on January 4, the Pope carefully avoided taking a position in the conflict, contenting himself primarily with stating that “the good of the beloved Venezuelan people must prevail over all other considerations.”

This calibrated position is characteristic of Vatican diplomacy, which always places itself above the conflicting parties, to defend what it deems essential, even if it means being accused of putting the aggressor and the aggressed on the same level.

The essential and the subsidiary

The “essential” in question follows in the Pope's message. It is about “overcoming violence and committing to the path of justice and peace, by guaranteeing the country's sovereignty, ensuring the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution, respecting the human and civil rights of each and all, and working together to build a serene future of collaboration, stability, and concord, with particular attention to the poorest who suffer from the difficult economic situation.”

This form of diplomacy, where state sovereignty, constitutional rules, and human rights nonetheless occupy their place, is that of “active neutrality”; a conduct of distancing from geopolitical “axes” similar to that which the Maronite patriarch wishes to see Lebanon adopt.

This diplomatic path is also referred to in Vatican language as “diplomacy of the common good.” Its means are those of dialogue, “unarmed and disarming” means, to borrow an image from Leo XIV, which differentiates it, for example, from UN diplomacy, whose levers are of a completely different order.

Active Neutrality, Not Passive

“Active neutrality” means that the Holy See does not take sides with one camp against another, without, however, remaining passive or “neutral” when fundamental rights are violated. Thus, in October 2023, in a public statement, Cardinal Parolin expressed deep concern regarding the escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, qualifying the ongoing actions as potentially constituting a "genocide".

Having no economic or military interests, the Holy See can thus judge a situation based on ethical principles, while promoting dialogue and always proposing non-violent solutions to conflicts. Often, in parallel, the Vatican will act behind the scenes, with discretion and constancy, in the direction of non-violence.

From the particular to the general

This does not prevent Vatican diplomacy from rising, in its fundamental reflection, from the particular to the general. In the message on the World Day of Peace, a plea from the Vatican against arms proliferation and the armaments industry is noted to this effect.

This plea takes into account, this year, the introduction of algorithms and nuclear deterrence into conflicts, to show that this new development, whose ravages are observed in the Middle East and Europe, undermines the very foundations of all civilization and leads humanity to the brink of the abyss.

“We are even witnessing,” the document adds, “a process of shirking responsibility by political and military leaders, due to the increasing ‘delegation’ to machines of decisions concerning the life and death of human persons. This is an unprecedented destructive spiral of the legal and philosophical humanism on which all civilization rests and by which all civilization is protected.”

Philosophical and Legal Humanism

What exactly is this “legal and philosophical humanism” raised by Leo XIV? On a philosophical level, it is to affirm that human beings have an inherent dignity, which does not depend on their utility, wealth, or strength; it is also to affirm that the human person is endowed with reason and freedom, and therefore responsible for their actions; finally, it is to affirm that society, politics, and science must serve humanity, and not the other way around.

These concepts, deeply rooted in Christian anthropology, correspond to the affirmation of faith that every human being is created in the image of God and that human dignity is therefore inalienable, even in situations of weakness (illness, poverty, old age, or fault).

On the legal level, humanism means that law exists to protect the human person, and not merely to organize power. This implies, in particular, the rejection of laws that treat human beings as mere objects (commodities, tools, data), especially in production relations. This is a critique of purely technical or utilitarian legal systems, as well as the idea that “everything legal is just.”

As we can see, the Church bases its judgments on very clear principles. Some believe that our era is "apocalyptic" and see in what is happening a sign of the "end times." But there is no need to go that far to judge. As Saint Augustine, a master of thought for Pope Leo XIV, assures us, men are free, responsible, and accountable for their actions. They will be judged by their fruits. Which does not prevent our era from being indeed unsettling.