Pope: Stop the spiral of violence and make room for diplomacy
Pope Leo XIV expresses concern over violence in Sudan, Ukraine and Russia, urging conversion of those sowing violence and an end to civilian casualties. He calls for humanitarian corridors in Sudan’s city of el‑Obeid and urges international support for an immediate ceasefire. The Pope highlights the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, citing shortages of food, water and medical supplies amid siege and sexual violence. He condemns the escalating conflict in Ukraine and Russia, standing with victims and urging the global community to seek peace.
about 1 month ago
Pope Leo XIV used his Angelus address on 9 August 2026 to condemn the growing cycles of violence in Sudan, Ukraine and Russia, urging humanitarian corridors, an immediate cease‑fire, respect for international law and a shift toward diplomacy, while also encouraging young people to draw inspiration from the saints. 1 2 3
The Pope began by expressing “spiritual closeness” to those suffering in Sudan’s besieged city of el‑Obeid and called on authorities to guarantee humanitarian corridors for civilians. 1
He then broadened his appeal to the war in Ukraine and Russia, noting the “ever‑increasing numbers of civilian victims, including children,” and urging respect for humanitarian law and an end to attacks on civilian targets. 2
Throughout, he repeated that “war only breeds more war” and that the international community must “halt the spiral of violence and make room for diplomacy and dialogue.” 1 2
The Pope highlighted el‑Obeid as a new humanitarian hotspot, where drone strikes, sexual violence and siege have left more than 500,000 people without food, water or medical supplies. 3
UN and World Food Programme reports describe the city as an “epicenter” of displacement and hunger, with nearly 400,000 people in the surrounding district facing acute food insecurity. 2
Leo XIV condemned recent Russian missile attacks on Kyiv that killed at least 17 civilians and a Ukrainian drone strike on Belgorod that killed five, emphasizing the need to protect civilians on both sides. 2
He warned that each new “tragic episode” multiplies civilian casualties and called for an immediate cease‑fire and renewed respect for international humanitarian law. 1 3
The Pope urged the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States, Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, to intensify diplomatic efforts, including a planned visit to Moscow, to facilitate humanitarian access and peace talks. 2
He appealed to the global community to support the creation of safe passages for aid and to pressure warring parties into negotiations. 1
After the Angelus, the Pope met youth groups in St. Peter’s Square and in Assisi, encouraging them to look to saints such as Dominic, Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Lawrence and Clare of Assisi for hope and action. 1
He urged young people to devote their vacation time to activities that foster personal growth, friendship and solidarity with those suffering. 1
Pursuing Vatican diplomacy to end violence in Sudan and Ukraine
Pope Leo XIV’s diplomatic approach to Sudan and Ukraine rests on a consistent Catholic principle: war is not an inevitable instrument of politics, and peace must be pursued through dialogue, negotiation, humanitarian protection, and respect for the dignity of every person. The Holy See’s diplomacy combines public appeals, engagement with governments and international institutions, ecumenical and interreligious cooperation, humanitarian action, and prayer.
The Holy See presents diplomacy not as the abandonment of justice, but as the practical means by which justice can be pursued without multiplying human suffering. Pope Leo XIV has insisted that dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation must be used to resolve tensions and that ending war is a “solemn duty” of political leaders.
This approach rejects two opposing errors:
The Pope’s proposal for an “unarmed and disarming” peace indicates that peace must be more than the temporary absence of combat. It must be rooted in human dignity, moral responsibility, and structures that prevent renewed violence. In a message addressing human trafficking, Pope Leo warned that the logic of domination can lead people to treat human lives as expendable “collateral damage.”
The conflict in Sudan is described in the Catholic sources as a struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, together with associated armed groups. The conflict has caused deaths, destruction of property, mass displacement, and a grave humanitarian crisis.
The Catholic response therefore has several connected dimensions.
The bishops of South Sudan have called upon the international community to press the warring parties to choose dialogue rather than violence. Their appeal is particularly significant because South Sudan is directly affected by the Sudanese conflict through refugee movements, regional instability, and humanitarian pressure.
This reflects the Holy See’s broader conviction that negotiations must not be dismissed as weakness or surrender. Pope John Paul II, speaking about conflict in Sudan, urged “mutual understanding and dialogue” and hoped that negotiations and agreements would recognize the rights of the peoples involved.
The Catholic sources emphasize that civilians are not incidental victims but the central concern of diplomacy. Reports cited by the South Sudanese bishops include killing, looting, rape, attacks on hospitals, denial of food, water, and electricity, and the indiscriminate use of heavy weapons.
Consequently, Vatican diplomacy must press for:
The Holy See has explicitly warned that contemporary wars increasingly strike civilians indiscriminately and that grave violations of humanitarian law constitute war crimes.
The Church’s humanitarian role is not separate from diplomacy. The South Sudanese bishops state that Catholic agencies, including Caritas South Sudan, support refugees from Sudan and that the Church continues to offer moral solidarity and practical care to those fleeing the war.
A durable settlement cannot be constructed solely between military commanders or external powers. The Catholic bishops stress that ordinary Sudanese civilians have repeatedly expressed their desire for a democratic civilian government and for military forces to come under civilian control.
This point is crucial for evaluating diplomatic initiatives. A ceasefire negotiated without civilian participation may suspend fighting while leaving the underlying political crisis intact. The bishops therefore call for the voice of ordinary people to be heard and for the root causes of conflict to be addressed.
The Catholic understanding of peace requires more than an agreement among armed elites. It requires political institutions that serve the common good, respect the rule of law, and protect the rights of the population.
The sources supplied here provide less detailed information about specific Vatican diplomatic initiatives concerning Ukraine. They do, however, establish the principles by which the Holy See evaluates the war.
Pope Francis’s diplomatic address, cited in the available material, identifies Ukraine as a clear example of a conflict in which the distinction between military and civilian targets has not been adequately respected. It warns that violations of international humanitarian law are war crimes and cannot merely be noted without consequence.
Pope Leo XIV’s general diplomatic message therefore applies directly to Ukraine:
The Pope’s appeal to “stop the spiral of violence” is consistent with his broader teaching that violence does not resolve the moral and political causes of conflict. At the prayer vigil for peace, he declared that war divides while hope unites, and he rejected prayer as an escape from responsibility. Prayer, he said, should lead people to rise from the “rubble” and confront injustice rather than become numb to it.
The available sources do not provide enough information to assess particular proposals involving prisoners, territorial arrangements, security guarantees, or the repatriation of displaced Ukrainians. They do establish, however, that any acceptable diplomatic settlement must respect human life, international law, and the rights of civilians.
Vatican diplomacy differs from the diplomacy of a military power or a conventional political bloc. The Holy See does not generally seek to impose a settlement through coercion. Its influence is exercised through several forms of moral and diplomatic accompaniment.
The Pope speaks directly to political leaders and the diplomatic corps, reminding them that political authority is ordered toward the common good and peace. Pope Leo has stated that those responsible for government will be held accountable for failing to seek peace or for fomenting tensions.
The Holy See’s diplomatic representatives and apostolic nuncios maintain contact with governments, local Churches, international organizations, and humanitarian actors. Pope Leo described the service of papal representatives as a form of the Pope’s pastoral presence, especially in places marked by conflict, poverty, and despair.
Such diplomacy can create space for communication when official political channels are blocked. Its effectiveness often depends on discretion, credibility, and the trust built through long-term presence.
In South Sudan, Christian leaders have worked together across ecclesial boundaries. The Holy See supported an ecumenical peace pilgrimage involving Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. The purpose was to encourage political leaders to pursue dialogue, forgiveness, and the implementation of peace agreements.
Pope Leo has likewise emphasized dialogue with people of different religions as a means of fraternity, mutual understanding, and peace-building.
This is particularly important in Africa, where religious communities often possess local credibility, networks of service, and access to communities that foreign governments may not reach. Ecumenical and interreligious action does not erase theological differences; it enables cooperation for the protection of human life and the pursuit of peace.
Pope Leo’s peace vigil makes clear that prayer and diplomacy are not competing approaches. Prayer is meant to transform the hearts and responsibilities of those who act politically. It is “not a refuge in which to hide from our responsibilities,” but a response that should inspire action against injustice.
The Holy See’s diplomatic method can therefore be summarized as prayer, dialogue, accompaniment, humanitarian service, and moral accountability.
Vatican diplomacy cannot by itself compel military leaders to stop fighting, remove foreign support for armed groups, or guarantee that political agreements will be implemented. The experience of South Sudan illustrates the difficulty of translating agreements into genuine peace. Catholic leaders have warned that power-sharing arrangements can become an uneasy partnership among elites if they fail to address root causes, economic hardship, insecurity, and the needs of ordinary citizens.
For diplomacy to succeed, therefore, several conditions are necessary:
The Holy See’s approach is demanding because it refuses to identify peace with silence or stability with the preservation of unjust power structures.
Vatican diplomacy toward Sudan and Ukraine is guided by a coherent Catholic vision: peace must be negotiated, civilians must be protected, justice must be respected, and the dignity of every person must remain the measure of political action.
For Sudan, this means urging the armed factions to enter dialogue, listening to civilian aspirations, providing humanitarian assistance, and supporting regional and ecumenical peace efforts. For Ukraine, it means opposing attacks on civilians, insisting on respect for international humanitarian law, and keeping open the possibility of a negotiated settlement that does not normalize aggression or disregard human rights.
Pope Leo XIV’s message is that diplomacy must not wait for perfect conditions. Even amid war, political leaders have a moral duty to create opportunities for dialogue, while the Church accompanies suffering peoples through prayer, humanitarian service, and the persistent proclamation that peace remains possible.