Rebuilding the grammar of ‘We’

By Maurizio Martina *

There are moments in history when the crisis of an institution reveals, with particular clarity, the crisis of an idea. The fragility that today permeates the multilateral system is not merely a matter of procedure or geopolitical equilibrium. It is the symptom of a deeper moral impoverishment, a growing inability to recognize ourselves as participants in a shared human destiny. It is from this awareness that the reflection offered by the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas of Leo XIV takes its starting point. Broad in scope and profound in substance, the document engages with the defining challenges of our times, offering insights that speak with remarkable depth not only to believers but also to all those concerned with the future of humanity and the common good. 

An international order under pressure

The picture drawn by the Holy Father is one of striking clarity. The international order painstakingly constructed in the aftermath of the Second World War—founded on the principles of the UN Charter, the primacy of international law, and the renunciation of war as an instrument of policy— today finds itself under unprecedented strain. Peace, once placed at the very heart of the global institutional architecture, appears increasingly relegated to the margins of political and public discourse.

The encyclical offers a lucid and sobering diagnosis of a phenomenon that should trouble the conscience of all people of goodwill: the progressive “rehabilitation of war as an instrument of international politics.” This is not merely a deterioration of the diplomatic climate. Leo XIV identifies a “true paradigm shift in public discourse and in rearmament decisions”, a transformation that risks pushing the world towards a condition of “permanent belligerence”, one that he considers even more insidious than the Cold War. During that earlier era, despite profound ideological divisions, there remained a shared conviction that another global conflict had to be avoided at all costs. Today, that awareness appears to have weakened dangerously.

Within this context, the crisis of multilateralism cannot be understood as a contingent or temporary setback. It is instead the manifestation of a deeper crisis: the rise of a “culture of power” that , in the Pontiff’s words, substitutes the force of law with the law of the strongest. The institutions created to safeguard the global common good, above all the United Nations system, seem increasingly fragile. Their weakness stems not primarily from a lack of authority, but from the erosion of the shared political and moral will upon which every durable institution ultimately depends. At its core, this is a crisis of trust. The mutual confidence that constitutes the invisible foundation of lasting cooperation amongst nations has begun to fracture. And when trust erodes, even the most carefully designed institutions risk losing their capacity to uphold the order they were created to protect.

A “disordered and conflictual multipolarism”

The diagnosis is both precise and compelling: the contemporary world is increasingly immersed in a condition of “disordered and conflictual multipolarism,” in which distrust of the other has come to prevail over the logic of cooperation. This dynamic manifests itself simultaneously across multiple dimensions of international life. Geopolitically, we are witnessing the fragmentation of long-standing alliances and the re-emergence of rivalries once believed to have been consigned to history. Economically, the principles of commercial multilateralism are giving way to protectionist impulses and the strategic use of supply chains as instruments of political leverage. In the sphere of security, the arms race—including the nuclear one— has regained momentum, while new arenas of confrontation, from cyberspace to the depth of the oceans, continue to develop beyond any effective framework of shared governance.

Against this backdrop, the encyclical argues that both the United Nations and the broader international political system stand in urgent need of “profound reforms” capable of restoring its original vocation: the pursuit of a just and stable global order. This appeal builds upon a long and enduring tradition of Catholic social thought, yet it acquires particular urgency in light of the challenges of the present moment. Leo XIV does not limit himself to lamenting the deterioration of the international order. He also points towards a path of renewal, grounded in the recognition of the inherent dignity of every person and every people as the indispensable foundation of political life.

His warning resounds with particular force: “War is never inevitable; weapons can and must fall silent, because they do not solve problems but make them worse.” These words are not the expression of abstract idealism but of a sober reading of history. Time and again, wars have failed to resolve the disputes that gave rise to them. More often, they have intensified grievances, multiplied injustices, and transmitted unresolved conflicts to future generations burdened with even greater bitterness. Violence may alter the balance of power, but it rarely heals the wounds from which conflict emerges. On the contrary, it deepens them, perpetuating cycles of resentment that continue long after the battlefield has fallen silent. 

War, poverty, hunger: A single moral crisis

One of the enduring insights of modern papal thought, reaffirmed with particular force in Magnifica Humanitas, is the inseparable relationship between war, poverty, and hunger. This is not a simple chain of cause and effect, but a vicious cycle in which each reality reinforces the others, generating spirals of destruction that invariably fall most heavily upon the vulnerable.

Armed conflict devastates economies, destroys productive infrastructure, displaces agricultural communities, and disrupts the cycles of cultivation and harvest on which entire societies depend. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated with painful clarity how a conflict in one of the world’s principal grain-producing regions can undermine the food security of populations in Africa and Asia that have no direct involvement in the hostilities. From the Sahel to the Horn of Africa, from Yemen to countless other fragile regions, violence has repeatedly precipitated acute food crises that international organizations struggle to address with increasingly limited resources and shrinking humanitarian access.

Within this context, the encyclical recalls the principle of the universal destination of goods as a foundational criterion of social justice. The resources of the earth, it insists, are not the exclusive possession of any individual or nation but are ultimately destined for the benefit and sustenance of all. This principle, developed with remarkable consistency throughout the tradition of Catholic social teaching, is presented by Leo XIV with renewed urgency at a time when global inequalities continue to deepen, particularly in societies scarred by conflict and instability.

It is therefore no coincidence that the Pontiff identifies migrants, refugees, and displaced persons as one of the decisive tests of contemporary justice. They stand as living witnesses to the failure of systems—international, national, and economic alike—that privilege the logic of power over the protection of human dignity. Millions of people fleeing violence carry not only the trauma of war but also the burdens of hunger, deprivation, and despair that war inevitably leaves in its wake. The multilateral system, in its present form, appears increasingly inadequate to respond to the scale and complexity of this human tragedy.

Climate change and the necessity of a global “We”

Among the defining challenges of our age, climate change perhaps demonstrates most clearly the necessity of effective multilateral cooperation. By its very nature, the ecological crisis transcends borders. Emissions generated on one continent alter climatic conditions on all others. Droughts intensified by global warming trigger migration flows that cross seas and deserts. Rising ocean levels threaten island nations that bear little responsibility for the causes of the phenomenon itself.

Advertisement

In addressing these realities, Magnifica Humanitas consciously follows the path opened by the encyclical Laudato Si’, inheriting and extending its critique of the technocratic paradigm. Leo XIV broadens this reflection to encompass artificial intelligence, warning that technological development, when governed solely by the imperatives of markets and power, may aggravate ecological degradation rather than alleviate it. The immense data centers that sustain advanced AI systems consume extraordinary quantities of energy and water, while accelerated digitalization generates new forms of dependence whose environmental costs often remain hidden from public scrutiny.

Yet the encyclical’s argument extends beyond a critique of technology’s ecological footprint. At its heart lies a vision of integral human development, drawing upon the legacy of Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio, in which technological progress, social justice, and care for creation are understood not as competing objectives but as interconnected dimensions of a single human vocation. Authentic development, the document suggests, concerns “every person and the whole person.”

From this perspective, the climate crisis cannot be addressed through partial measures or agreements that remain ineffective for lack of political will. It requires precisely that shared responsibility which multilateralism, at its best, is meant to embody. The weakening of environmental multilateralism—evident in the erosion of commitments under the Paris framework and the persistent reluctance to adequately finance ecological transitions in developing countries—is therefore not merely a diplomatic or technical failure. It is, fundamentally, a moral one. It reflects the growing difficulty of what the encyclical identifies as the central challenge of our age: learning once again to think of ourselves as a “we.”

Disarming artificial intelligence: a global governance

Amongst the most significant contributions of Magnifica Humanitas is its engagement with a question destined to shape the coming decades: the governance of artificial intelligence. The encyclical recognizes with remarkable clarity that the digital revolution is transforming the very grammar of conflict. Alongside conventional warfare, new forms of confrontation are emerging—cyberattacks, information manipulation, algorithmic influence, and the automation of strategic decision-making—that often elude the categories and protections established by traditional international law.

The call to “disarm AI” is neither a rejection of technological innovation nor an exercise in nostalgia. Rather, it is an appeal to free technological development from the exclusive logic of competition and domination, restoring it to the sphere of shared responsibility where it can be directed toward the common good. As Leo XIII argued more than a century ago regarding the social consequences of industrialization, the Church cannot remain silent at historical turning points that place human dignity at risk. The rise of artificial intelligence represents precisely such a moment.

For this reason, Leo XIV urges international institutions to confront the challenge of AI governance with urgency, developing common ethical frameworks capable of guiding its design, deployment, and oversight. Here, despite all its present difficulties, multilateralism remains the only plausible horizon. No state, however powerful, can by itself impose effective limits on a technological transformation whose reach transcends national borders.

The necessity of Diplomacy

Yet Magnifica Humanitas is ultimately not a document of pessimism. Leo XIV speaks as a witness to hope who, precisely because he sees the dangers of the present with clarity, is able to point toward paths of renewal. Diplomacy and multilateralism are not institutions to be abandoned because they are imperfect; they are instruments to be reformed, strengthened, and animated by renewed moral conviction.

Peace, in this vision, is far more than the mere absence of armed conflict. It is the fruit of justice shared among peoples, of an international order in which all nations can recognize themselves as represented and protected, and of systems of global governance capable of responding to humanity’s most fundamental needs—food, shelter, health, education, security—rather than merely serving the interests of the powerful.

Dialogue, therefore, is not simply one policy option among many. It is a moral imperative. The Pope insists upon this with the conviction of one who understands that words, when rooted in a genuine willingness to encounter the other, possess the power to build bridges where the logic of power perceives only divisions. “Building peace through justice” emerges as one of the guiding principles that the encyclical proposes not only to governments and international institutions, but to every person within the sphere of their own responsibility.

As always, Catholic social teaching does not offer technical blueprints. Instead, it provides criteria for discernment: the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home, and the pursuit of peace. It then calls upon individuals, communities, governments, and international actors alike to translate these principles into concrete action. In doing so, it offers an invitation that transcends ideological divisions and confessional boundaries, speaking to what is universal in the human conscience.

Rebuilding the grammar of “We”

Ultimately, the future of multilateralism depends upon a choice that is anthropological before it is political: the decision to recognize in the other—whether another nation, another people, or another individual—not an adversary to be contained or an instrument to be exploited, but a partner in the shared responsibility for our common world.

Magnifica Humanitas reminds us that this choice can never be taken for granted. The warning signs visible across the contemporary world demand a response marked by courage, imagination, and moral clarity. A world that loses what one of the encyclical’s most perceptive commentators has called “the grammar of we” is a world that weakens democracy and peace, international institutions and human dignity alike.

For believers and non-believers alike, Magnifica Humanitas stands among those rare documents capable of transcending confessional boundaries and speaking to all who reflect seriously on humanity’s shared future. In an age increasingly defined by fragmentation, fear, and competition for technological supremacy, Leo XIV chooses instead to speak the language of shared responsibility.

That is no small thing. Indeed, it may be the one language our age can no longer afford to ignore.

* Maurizio Martina is the FAO Deputy Director-General

Advertisement