(OSV News) — Hate speech “contradicts the commandment to love one’s neighbor,” said the Vatican’s top diplomat to the United Nations.
Archbishop Christophe Z. el-Kassis, apostolic nuncio and the Holy See’s permanent observer to the U.N., shared his thoughts in a statement during the Sept. 17 “Global Conference on Promoting Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue and Tolerance in Countering Hate Speech.”
The conference, which took place at the U.N.’s New York headquarters, was sponsored by the U.N.’s Alliance of Civilizations, created in 2005 to address social and cultural polarization.
In his address — which came one day after three Vatican dicasteries released a new note on the importance of interreligious and ecumenical dialogue — Archbishop el-Kassis said hate speech “poisons public discourse, inflames division, and too often prepares the ground for violence and persecution.”
Such damage is inflicted regardless of whether hate speech is “directed against individuals or communities on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other characteristic,” he said.
While “freedom of expression is a fundamental right that must be protected,” said the archbishop, “this freedom carries corresponding responsibilities.”
“Speech that deliberately incites hatred or violence cannot claim the protection of liberty,” he said, since “it erodes the very conditions in which genuine freedom can flourish.”
The Holy See “reaffirms that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God and possesses an inviolable dignity that no ideology, ideology of hatred, or expression of contempt may diminish,” the archbishop stressed.
That “foundational truth” creates “the moral imperative to reject every form of intolerance, discrimination, and hate speech that wounds the human family and undermines the conditions for peaceful coexistence,” said Archbishop el-Kassis.
He quoted Pope Leo XIV’s May 12, 2025, address to media representatives, during which the pope said, “Let us disarm words and we will help to disarm the world.”
Archbishop el-Kassis also noted that “peace cannot be woven by words alone.”
He clarified that “true tolerance is not indifference or relativism,” but rather “the active recognition of the equal dignity of every person and the freedom of conscience that belongs to each.”
Authentic tolerance “requires the patient effort of dialogue, mutual understanding, and the rejection of stereotypes,” said Archbishop el-Kassis.
He added, “In this spirit the Holy See promotes interreligious and intercultural dialogue as an essential path toward overcoming prejudice and building a better world for all.”
Facts Only
* Archbishop Christophe Z. el-Kassis is the apostolic nuncio and Holy See permanent observer to the U.N.
* A Global Conference on Promoting Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue and Tolerance in Countering Hate Speech occurred on Sept. 17.
* The event took place at the U.N. headquarters in New York.
* The U.N. Alliance of Civilizations sponsored the conference.
* The U.N. Alliance of Civilizations was created in 2005.
* Three Vatican dicasteries released a note on interreligious and ecumenical dialogue on Sept. 16.
* Pope Leo XIV delivered an address to media representatives on May 12, 2025.
* Archbishop el-Kassis stated that freedom of expression is a fundamental right.
* Archbishop el-Kassis stated that speech inciting hatred or violence is not protected by liberty.
* The Holy See promotes interreligious and intercultural dialogue to overcome prejudice.
Executive Summary
Archbishop Christophe Z. el-Kassis, representing the Holy See at the United Nations, recently addressed a conference focused on countering hate speech and promoting intercultural dialogue. Speaking at an event sponsored by the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations in New York, the Archbishop argued that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it entails responsibilities. He asserted that speech deliberately inciting hatred or violence undermines the conditions necessary for genuine freedom and contradicts the moral imperative to love one's neighbor.
The Vatican's position emphasizes that every person possesses an inviolable dignity as an image of God, necessitating the rejection of intolerance and discrimination regardless of the target's religion, ethnicity, or nationality. This stance aligns with recent Vatican communications, including a note from three dicasteries and a May 2025 address by Pope Leo XIV. The Holy See defines true tolerance not as indifference or relativism, but as the active recognition of equal dignity and freedom of conscience achieved through patient dialogue and the rejection of stereotypes.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is a humanist plea for a "disarmed" public square, arguing that the preservation of human dignity is the prerequisite for any meaningful exercise of liberty. It posits that freedom of expression is not an absolute vacuum, but a social contract that fails when used to dismantle the safety and dignity of others.
The narrative relies on a high-level moral framework to bridge the gap between a protected right (expression) and a restrictive boundary (hate speech). Because "hate speech" is not legally or universally defined in the text, the argument relies on the listener accepting the Vatican's moral definition of "incitement" and "contempt." However, the speaker explicitly attempts to distance this position from moral relativism, claiming a foundation in "inviolable dignity" rather than shifting social norms.
Patterns detected: none
The driving paradigm is one of Universalism—the belief that there are objective, God-given truths about human dignity that supersede political or ideological divides. This echoes the historical role of the Holy See as a diplomatic mediator seeking a common ethical denominator for global governance. The second-order consequence of this approach is the tension between universal moral imperatives and the diverse legal definitions of speech across different sovereign states.
If this were an influence campaign, a bad actor would use "sanewashing" to mask a specific censorship agenda behind generalized calls for "tolerance" and "peace," utilizing the borrowed credibility of a religious institution to silence political dissent. The current content does not match this pattern; it presents a theological and diplomatic position without proposing specific legislative mechanisms or targeting specific political enemies.
Bridge Questions:
1. Where is the objective line between "expression of contempt" and "protected dissent" in a pluralistic society?
2. How does the rejection of "relativism" coexist with the goal of "intercultural dialogue" when the participating cultures hold contradictory foundational truths?
3. What mechanisms ensure that the "responsibility" attached to freedom of expression is not used by state powers to suppress legitimate criticism?