Paideia Christi as Understood by Francis and Leo XIV

Abstract

This article offers a point-by-point overview of the concept of Christian education as understood by popes Francis and Leo XIV. It could be argued that the writings of these recent popes return to the early Christian idea of paideia Christi. Pope Leo XIV refers directly to the term ‘paideia’ by using the phrase ‘Christian paideia’. Francis’s educational anthropology, on the other hand, is theologically and pedagogically consistent with the tradition of Christian paideia. Although Francis does not use the term ‘paideia’, his understanding of education is also centred on the human person and their integral development. In this theoretical framework, education is no longer viewed merely as a tool for achieving salvation. However, it serves to enable the human person to grow in their humanity and thereby attain integral maturity, the pinnacle of which is union with God. It is within this theoretical perspective that the significance of education for building peace and social order should also be understood. In this view, peace emerges as the result of a humanistic education; hence, to achieve genuine peace among people, the emphasis must be placed on a genuinely humanistic education. The idea is rooted primarily in the ancient Greek understanding of paideia. It has also been taken up throughout history, for example, by Comenius in Pampaedia, Dewey in Democracy and Education (1916), Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968/1970), and, more recently, by Nussbaum in Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (2010). Pope Leo XIV also sees this perspective of internal coherence between authentic personal development. From the very beginning of his pontificate, one can observe in his teachings a linking of these two issues. In one of his earliest addresses, Pope Leo XIV emphasised that the concern for peace amongst people does indeed stem from the Christian faith. It could be said that building peace within human society is a Christian imperative, arising from the sharing of the gift which the Church has received from Christ himself: ‘Peace be with you!’. In this context, it is worth noting that the mission of bringing about peace is not merely the result of specific human activity, although this is, of course, important, and Leo indicates how it should be carried out. Nevertheless, what is crucial to the fulfilment of this mission is that the surest guarantee of its success is a personal relationship with Christ, from which flows the transmission of Christ’s gift of peace to the world. The Pope addressed the Italian Bishops’ Conference with the following words: “the relationship with Christ calls on us to develop a pastoral focus on the theme of peace”. Pope Leo thus points out that the path to building authentic peace in the world, which “is not the absence of conflict”, is the path of personal growth in one’s relationship with Christ, who is the source of peace. In this way, the maturing of a person of faith is the surest way of building—though in this context it would be more accurate to say: conveying—peace in the world.

1. Introduction

Over the last century, the Church has devoted increasing attention in its official teaching to the issue of education, but—far more importantly—education itself is increasingly understood as the full, integral development of the human person. It is not reduced merely to intellectual development and the organisation of Catholic schooling. It can also be observed that the idea of paideia Christi, which the Church Fathers proposed right at the very beginning of Christianity, is slowly returning.

This idea is increasingly evident in the writings of Francis and Leo XIV. Although (so far) there is no specific document devoted to this issue, the general teaching of these two popes nevertheless reveals a novelty in this educational approach within the Church. This article puts forward the thesis that the teachings of Francis and Leo XIV contain an educational perspective which can be linked to the early Christian concept of paideia Christi. The immediate inspiration for putting forward this thesis was Leo XIV’s use of the term ‘Christian paideia’ in one of his documents (Leo XIV 2025b, 1.2) It should also be noted that this article does not undertake to present the entirety of the teachings of the last two popes on the subject of education, but rather select only those texts which indicate that Francis and Leo XIV are speaking ever more clearly about education as an integral part of human development. For this reason, this article presents selected passages from the teachings of these popes—which, one can argue, are the most accessible and bear witness to this.

The present study employs the hermeneutic method, whose main goal is ‘to recognise and reconstruct meaning, and along with meaning, the spirit that, through the forms of its objectification, speaks to another thinking spirit which feels a kinship with it by virtue of belonging to the human community’ (Betti 2015, p. 27). Its application will enable the uncovering of hidden meanings in the selected statements of both popes under analysis by interpreting them in the context of the Church’s teaching. This research approach corresponds to the main principle of hermeneutics proposed by Schleiermacher. It states that a single element must be incorporated into the overarching totality (the part through the whole, the whole through the part) (Kubinowski 2010; Wulf 2003; Zierer et al. 2013). Applying this principle to the present study, the ‘part’ will be the concept of paidea Christi, identified as the hidden meaning within the analysed documents rather than as the literal record (fact) of this phrase. The ‘whole’, on the other hand, is the context of the Church’s teaching regarding human development and education. The principle of the hermeneutic circle, which applies here (Schleiermacher 2000, p. 209), leads, according to Kaufman, to ‘the most objective meaning’, for where the researcher brings their own existence into their research endeavour, ‘they will be able to hear what the text has to say’ (Kaufman 1931, p. 41). Although this research approach is frequently criticised as speculative and imprecise (Krüger 2007, p. 30), it is nevertheless an assessment based on paradigmatic decisions rather than empirical verification (Denzin and Lincoln 2018).

This article consists of three main parts. The first is devoted to a brief overview of how the theme of education is present in the Church’s most important documents. The second part focuses on pedagogical anthropology, and the last on the understanding of education and its significance for evangelisation. For it is impossible to speak of paideia Christi without outlining its anthropological foundations, since this understanding of education essentially concerns the full development of the human person.

2. ‘Education’ in the Context of the Church’s Official Teaching

The Church’s missionary work is manifested, among other things, through its educational activities. From the very beginning, the Church has been committed to the education of the younger generation. Although the nature of this activity varied, undoubtedly due to its cultural context, it was essentially always subordinate to the main objective, namely the proclamation of the gospel of Christ and leading people to salvation. This is evident, among other things, from the fact that although educational issues very often appear in the Church’s universal teaching, the popes have not dedicated specific documents to them, with the exception of those concerning the organisation and functioning of Catholic teaching and schooling at every level of education, a recent example of which is, among others, Francis’ Apostolic Constitution Veritatis gaudium (Francis 2017).

The situation changed in the 20th century when Pope Pius XI wrote the first—and so far only—encyclical on education, Divini illius magistri (Pius XI 1929), and the Council Fathers produced a separate declaration on the subject, Gravissimum educationis (Second Vatican Council 1965). These two fundamental documents naturally address the subject of Catholic education; nevertheless, they also reflect on the very nature of education, which is undoubtedly a less common thematic focus in earlier documents on this subject. In Pius XI’s encyclical, education is clearly and explicitly subordinated to the attainment of human salvation. The Pope writes that ‘it is clear that there can be no true education which is not wholly directed to man’s last end, and that in the present order of Providence, since God has revealed Himself to us in the Person of His Only Begotten Son, who alone is “the way, the truth and the life”, there can be no ideally perfect education which is not Christian education’ (Pius XI 1929, p. 7). In the conciliar document, however, the ontological foundations of education are addressed with increasing clarity, and its aims are increasingly identified as the integral development of the human person. The Council affirms that ‘true education aims at the formation of the human person in the pursuit of his ultimate end’; however, the context of this statement implies that Christian education is integral to human development, and thus every person (not only the believer) may feel addressed by this statement (Second Vatican Council 1965, p. 1).

To understand the context of the development of the Church’s contemporary thinking on education, it is also important to note such documents by Pope John Paul II as Sapientia christiana (Paul 1979) and Ex corde Ecclesiae (Paul 1990). Another significant document on education is John Paul II’s Gratissimam sane, in which, as part of the UN’s Year of the Family initiative, he writes a letter addressing educational issues (Paul 1994). He states, among other things, that ‘education is, first and foremost, a reciprocal “offering” on the part of both parents: together they communicate their own mature humanity to the newborn child, who in turn gives them the newness and freshness of the humanity it has brought into the world’ (Paul 1994, p. 16). In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI addressed a letter to the Diocese of Rome on the urgent need for education (Benedict XVI 2008). Another significant text in this thematic area is the document by the International Theological Commission: Quo vadis, humanitas? It was inspired by Francis and signed by Leo on 9 February 2026. It states, for instance, that ‘The theoretical-practical nature of theology encompasses the proclamation of faith (kerygma) and education in a vision of humanity’ (International Theological Commission 2026, p. 17). Another document is Leo XIV’s apostolic letter Disegnare nuove mappe di speranza (Leo XIV 2025c), written primarily to mark the 60th anniversary of the publication of Gravissimum educationis, but also to refer to Francis’s Global Compact on Education initiative of 2019. Finally, the last significant source in this area is undoubtedly Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica humanitas, which warrants a more extensive and separate study. At this point, it is worth noting only that the Pope emphasises the importance of a humanistic education in the context of the rapid development of digital technologies (Leo XIV 2026, p. 139).

To summarise this brief outline of changes within the Church regarding education, it should be noted that there has been a clear shift in emphasis: the Church no longer merely states that true education serves the ultimate goal of the human person—salvation—but increasingly recognises that true education, by serving the authentic development of the human person, contributes to that person’s attainment of salvation.

3. ‘Sound Anthropology’ as the Foundation of Educational Activity

In light of the shift in the Church’s thinking on education outlined above, the question of the person being educated has consistently become an increasingly important focus of pedagogical reflection. St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross/Edith Stein (1891–1946), a German philosopher and student of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), wrote that ‘pedagogy builds castles in the sand when it has no answer to the question “What is a human being?”’ (Stein 2015, p. 69). Such a position is neither original nor isolated in pedagogical research (Brezinka 1974, pp. 9–10; Cichoń 1996, p. 67; Jeziorański 2023; Zirfas 2021, p. 12). It is, however, worth recalling this today, as a ‘technical’ understanding of education is increasingly gaining ground in contemporary educational culture, reducing educational activity merely to answering the question: how to educate? Such shifts in the way we think about education are, among other things, the result of a contemporary focus on what is concrete and effective whilst overlooking anthropological or teleological issues, which are regarded as abstract, empty and detached from reality (Strembska-Kozieł 2023, p. 108). In other words, there is an increasing focus in education on seeking answers to what is effective whilst neglecting questions about what is right. And it can be assumed that the current, dynamic development of artificial intelligence and attempts to integrate it into the educational process will further intensify this phenomenon (Lipowicz 2017).

In this context, the shift in thinking presented in the Church’s teaching on education may serve as an important contemporary voice calling for an authentic understanding of education itself. Nearly a hundred years ago, Friederich Wilhelm Foerster (1869–1966) recognised this problem when he wrote that ‘the modern educator is constantly discovering new and improved methods with which to counteract the errors and weaknesses of young people effectively; yet it is all too often forgotten that a person’s influence on others is not the result of refined techniques of expression and the instructions given’ (Foerster 1934, p. 12). He went on to add that ‘if we do not possess a higher, organising goal, then individual moral and pedagogical actions have no deeper value’ (Foerster 1934, p. 54). It is therefore essential for educational activity to have a specific educational goal, which is linked to an anthropological concept. Only then can we be certain that educational activity will serve the development of the human person in their full existential potential, rather than merely the achievement of specific goals dictated by the current socio-economic situation.

The issue of the anthropology of education is present in the teachings of Francis and, as such, forms part of the educational context. In many of his teachings, the Pope has called for a proper, integral understanding of the human person. First and foremost, one should mention his warning regarding the understanding of education, which appears in the early years of his pontificate. In the encyclical Laudato si’, concerning the care for our common home, the Pope wrote that ‘our efforts at education will be inadequate and ineffectual unless we strive to promote a new way of thinking about human beings, life, society and our relationship with nature. Otherwise, the paradigm of consumerism will continue to advance, with the help of the media and the highly effective workings of the market’ (Francis 2015, p. 215). Beyond identifying a specific social problem, two distinct approaches to education are evident in this statement. One focuses on building an educational relationship between the human person and their surroundings, that is, the entire context of reality from which one should not flee. The second approach—which Francis warns against, viewing it negatively—is an approach that, following Julian Carrón, can be called anthropological ‘drifting’ (Carrón 2019, p. 47). It is a way of life in which a person allows themselves to be guided by contemporary consumerist trends. The Polish educator Sergiusz Hessen (1887–1950) vividly described such a situation, writing that in such cases ‘a person loses themselves, begins to think with other people’s thoughts, feel with other people’s feelings, and act not in their own way’ (Hessen 1997, p. 118), and worst of all, they are often unaware of it themselves.

In his message for the launch of the Educational Compact, Francis once again addresses anthropological issues in education. He writes of the need to find a ‘sound anthropology’ that underlies authentic economics, politics, development and human progress. Hence, the first step in this educational process is to heed the Pope’s following appeal: ‘we must have the courage to place the human person at the centre’ (Francis 2019b). This is all the more important because—as Francis notes earlier—we are currently ‘experiencing an era of change: a transformation that is not only cultural but also anthropological […]. Education clashes with what has been called a process of “rapidification” that traps our existence in a whirlwind of high-speed technology and computerisation’ (Francis 2019b).

It follows from the above that Francis unequivocally subscribes to a pedagogical approach in which the pupil—the human person—is at the centre of educational activities and concerns. Appropriate educational activity, on the one hand, stems from an understanding of the pupil themselves, their deepest needs, interests, ambitions and dreams; on the other hand, it is undertaken for their sake, that is, for the sake of their authentic personal development. In this sense, the pupil is placed at the centre of educational reflection, and pedagogical anthropology seeks to address these issues.

Francis, however, points out another important issue. When he emphasises the importance of starting with anthropology, he speaks—as mentioned above—of ‘sound anthropology’. He therefore assumes that there may be a flawed conception of the human person. Julian Carrón points to one such contemporary anthropological error. He notes that in current educational approaches, there are many different forms of individualism which, while placing the human person at the centre (Carrón 2019, p. 37), are nonetheless marked by the anthropological error of internal contradiction. Carrón explains that in these approaches, ‘the “self” is absolutely exalted, possessing no limits to its new rights, whilst at the same time it is stated between the lines that the subject of these rights is practically nothing, as it is reduced to the factors preceding it, be they material, natural or random’ (Carrón 2019, p. 39). It can therefore be summarised that what fundamentally distinguishes ‘sound anthropology’ from ‘erroneous anthropologies’ is the failure to recognise human freedom of choice in educational activity as a key determinant of personal development. For when Carrón observes that erroneous anthropologies ultimately reduce human functioning ‘to factors preceding him, whether material, natural or random’, this means that they adopt a mechanistic, fatalistic or deterministic model of human development based on cause-and-effect relationships, in which there is no room for the individual’s free decision.

In his encyclical Fratelli tutti, Francis, writing about education, referred to the well-known saying that every person is the architect of their own destiny; nevertheless, by placing this saying in the context of the pedagogical anthropology outlined above (‘Education serves these by making it possible for each human being to shape his or her own future’) (Francis 2020, p. 187) one can discern in this text the message that it is above all a person’s free (!) decisions that shape them, and that education is intended to stimulate, affirm and support this process, rather than replace it. Leo XIV, on the other hand, notes that ‘the activity of the educator is to lift people up, helping them to become themselves and to develop informed consciences and the capacity for critical thinking’ (Leo XIV 2025c), while the fundamental ‘role of educators […] is a human endeavour; and the very joy of the educational process is a fully human engagement’ (Leo XIV 2025a). All these statements confirm that the Church’s educational philosophy places the human person and their development at the centre.

4. Proclaiming the Gospel—Education: Christ—The Paidagogos

The message of the gospel has educational potential. For it serves to ensure that, having encountered Jesus Christ, a person surrenders to the transforming power of his grace and shapes their life after his example. This is also one of the four main reasons why the Word—the eternal Logos—became flesh: to be for us a model of the life to which God called humanity in his Son even before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). The Catechism states that ‘the Word became flesh to be our model of holiness’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992, p. 459). Hence, from the very beginning of his teaching, Christ called for a transformation of life and for it to be shaped according to his gospel (Mark 1:15). At this point, evangelising activity coincides with educational activity, and Christ can be called a Paidagogos.

Although there is a connection between evangelisation and education—in that both aim to influence human life in order to bring about its authentic development—there is also a fundamental difference between these processes. This difference amounts to, above all, a different understanding of what has been referred to above as the authentic good of human development. To simplify the issue, evangelisation focuses on a person attaining eternal good (salvation), whilst education is often associated with the ability to live one’s life well here and now. Of course, these are not hard-and-fast boundaries; nevertheless, such a distinction in meaning can be observed.

This distinction is also manifested in language. In addition to the term ‘upbringing’, the term ‘formation’ has also appeared in the Church’s teaching. Fr Marian Nowak (1955–2025) points out that there are four models of the mutual relationship between these concepts, including an approach in which ‘a strict distinction is made between the two concepts, indicating that “upbringing” is directed more towards the moral and social aspects, whilst “formation” would encompass intellectual, cultural and spiritual aspects” (Nowak 1999, p. 287). Importantly—as Fr Nowak writes—‘in the Declaration on Christian Education and many other Church documents […] it is emphasised that “upbringing” applies to everyone, whereas “formation” is referred to when specific types of vocation and specific tasks are concerned’ (Nowak 1999, p. 287). An example of such an approach is Amedeo Cencini’s presentation of numerous formation models, all of which pertain to the religious sphere (Cencini 2006). Drawing on the classical philosophy of science derived from St Thomas Aquinas (cited in Kamiński 1998, pp. 187–88), it can be said on the basis of the above that ‘evangelisation’ and ‘education’ share a common formal object, which is the intentional influence on a person, whilst they are distinguished by their material object, which is the distinct scope of that influence.

In light of the distinctions outlined above, it should be noted that, since Vatican II, an approach has been developing in parallel within the Church’s teaching in which the distinctions between evangelisation and education are becoming blurred, not only in terms of their formal object but also in terms of their material object. This means that evangelisation (or: formation) is no longer seen as shaping solely the religious sphere of the human person, nor is it the case that the Church, when speaking of human formation, is encroaching on ‘foreign’ areas by addressing, for example, social, ecological or sexual education; rather, an approach based on an anthropology centred on the religious dimension is becoming increasingly evident. This means that the kerygma is God’s message containing the truth not only about the spiritual (religious) development of the human person, but about their development in general. In other words, the gospel brings the truth about human salvation, which is deeply embedded in all areas of every person’s life, and not merely in the religious life of the believer. Hence, recent popes have spoken so willingly and responsibly (!) on social and educational issues, a tendency particularly evident in Francis and also in Leo XIV.

An important impetus for this view of evangelisation and the role of the Church in general in the field of education, which continues to require in-depth study and scholarly research, is the definition of education proposed by Gravissimum educationis. Although the declaration still distinguishes between ‘education’ and ‘Christian education’, in defining the former term, the Council Fathers note that ‘all men of every race, condition and age, since they enjoy the dignity of a human being, have an inalienable right to an education’ (Second Vatican Council 1965, p. 1). It is worth noting the statement that education is the right of every human being by virtue of the fact that they enjoy the dignity of a human person. This dignity, in turn, stems primarily from the Church’s belief that every human being was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27). Hence, the Church acknowledges that every human being possesses such dignity and that it is inalienable. In this way, the truth of faith regarding likeness to God and the resulting inalienable personal dignity of every human being, by becoming the foundation for educational activity, means that religious education must take human development in general as its object, and not merely strictly religious development. This is a very significant change, which can even be called a paradigm shift.

This new approach to human formation in the Church’s teaching can be observed in the statements of Francis and, more recently, in those of Leo XIV. It is impossible to point to a specific text by Francis in which he directly addresses the issue in question, as he has not analysed this problem explicitly. Nevertheless, his extremely vivid and concrete statements suggest precisely this approach to understanding the Church’s primary mission, namely evangelisation. By way of example, this article highlights two particular statements by Francis. The first comes from the Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel, Evangelii gaudium. It addresses, among other things, the question of re-examining the validity of certain customs, rules of religious life, or even Church norms and commandments. Their ‘time-honoured’ presence in the practice of the Church is not, for Francis, an argument for their retention; rather, it is solely their educational value. The Pope writes: ‘In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated. Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them. At the same time, the Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives’ (Francis 2013, p. 43).

To put the above thought differently, one might say that the Church’s educational power (i.e., evangelisation) must shape human lives. In the Polish translation of this text, ‘shaping people’s lives’ has been rendered as ‘channels of life’. This phrasing implies that evangelisation as such cannot be understood as a set of principles, rules or norms. These are variable and must be variable, as they need to be adapted to the contexts of human life. What remains unchanging—in accordance with the immediate context of the above statement—is the proclamation of the kerygma, which must take such forms that it becomes a ‘channel of life’, that is, the transmission and reinforcement of what constitutes an authentic, profound, meaningful and fulfilling human life in general. For nothing justifies understanding the phrase ‘channels of life’ solely in relation to religious life. Admittedly, religious life is encompassed by this statement, but it does not exhaust its meaning. This text thus reveals a connection between the Good News, which, by expressing itself through principles, norms and customs, leads to the authentic developmental good of humanity in general.

A similar statement can be found in the encyclical on fraternity and social friendship. The Pope observes that ‘it is true that religious ministers must not engage in the party politics that are the proper domain of the laity, but neither can they renounce the political dimension of life itself, which involves a constant attention to the common good and a concern for integral human development’ (Francis 2020, p. 276). In this brief statement, the Holy Father points above all to the subtle distinction between strictly political activity, to which clergy (by implication: in their evangelising role) have no right. In other words, Christ’s teaching cannot be couched in strictly political language and structures. Nevertheless, political engagement is an integral part of human life and development in the broadest sense; hence, these same clergymen ‘neither can they renounce the political dimension of life itself’ when undertaking the process of evangelisation. It follows, therefore, from this text that the proclamation of the gospel must encompass issues related to politics, but also ecology, the economy, etc., for only then will it be able to influence ‘for integral human development’. It is worth noting that the Pope is not speaking here of human salvation, but of human integral development. This final conclusion is particularly significant in the context of the issues under discussion. To highlight it, this paper proposes the following rephrasing of the Pope’s statement: the evangelising commitment of the clergy must be centred on the integral development of the human person; hence, the kerygma must encompass the entirety of the existential areas and dilemmas of human life.

There are many statements by Francis similar to those above, albeit without the direct evangelical context, in which he also emphasises how important the full, integral development of the human person is to him. One such statement can be found in his encyclical Laudato si’: ‘The fact is that “contemporary man has not been trained to use power well”, because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience’ (Francis 2015, p. 105). The second, however, is found in the post-synodal exhortation to young people: ‘for one of the greatest joys that any educator can have is to see a student turn into a strong, well-integrated person, a leader, someone prepared to give’ (Francis 2019a, p. 221). As noted above, these are merely examples of statements in which Francis teaches about human development in general, about integral development, which encompasses all areas of human life, ranging from the biological to the spiritual (religious). All such statements lead to the conclusion that the message of the gospel inspires the shaping of human life as such. In other words, by living according to the example of Jesus Christ, a person finds fulfilment not only spiritually (religiously) but also in their humanity; they fill their life with authentic meaning—the Logos—even if they have not yet come to know him fully.

As for Leo, it is, of course, impossible to cite so many statements on this subject. Nor is it possible to place the statements made on the topic presented here within the full context of the Pope’s teaching, as it is still evolving. Nevertheless, two points are worth noting. Firstly, the very publication of the Apostolic Letter Drawing new maps of hope to mark the 60th anniversary of the publication of the Conciliar Declaration Gravissimum educationis (Leo XIV 2025b) demonstrates that education is close to Leo’s heart. Secondly, and far more importantly, the Pope uses the ancient Greek term paideia in this document. He writes as follows: ‘we live in a complex, fragmented, digitised educational environment. Precisely for this reason, it is wise to pause and refocus our gaze on the “cosmology of Christian paideia”: a vision that, over the centuries, has been able to renew itself and positively inspire all the multifaceted aspects of education’ (Leo XIV 2025b, sct 1.2). This single statement alone is immensely rich in content. Used in the context of education, ‘Christian paideia’ refers the reader primarily to the early Christian approach of linking the gospel of Christ with the universal individual and cultural development of the human person and of society as a whole. However, this statement also refers the reader to the entirety of the humanistic thought embodied in the word ‘paideia’ (Jaeger 2012).

In early Christianity, according to Werner Jaeger (1888–1961), there was a ‘personal union’ of two worlds: the Greek and the Christian (Jaeger 2002, p. 59). Furthermore, the very establishment of the term paideia of Christ clearly indicates the conviction that ‘Christianity appeared as a continuation of classical Greek paideia’ (and thus implied that ‘classical paideia had been superseded by the fact that Christ had become the centre of a new culture’ (Jaeger 2002, p. 33). A particular expression of the development of this idea is the Church Father, St Clement of Alexandria (150–212), who was the first to call Christ a pedagogue (Paidagogos). This theme also warrants further exploration, as it identifies an important representative of the Greek paideia—the pedagogue.

In ancient Greece, a pedagogue was a slave whose task was to escort a boy to school (Litak 2006, p. 26). Such a person did not enjoy social recognition; on the contrary, those unsuitable for other work were often assigned the role of pedagogue, that is, to escort the child to a private tutor. Although this is a very common understanding of the word ‘pedagogue’ itself, it is not the only one. In this regard, Plato brought about a revolutionary shift, ultimately relating the Greek paideia to God and calling God himself the ‘pedagogue of the universe’(Platon 1960, Nomoi (Nόμoι)). In this way, Plato emphasised the status and philosophical dignity not only of paideia, but above all of the ‘pedagogue’ (Jaeger 2002, p. 76). In this context, when the early Church spoke of paideia Christi and referred to Christ himself as the Pedagogue, it was pointing above all to the educational potential of Christ’s gospel in relation to every human being and entire societies. Christ’s message not only saves people, in the sense of bringing them into the Kingdom of God after death but also perfects them already here on earth, in every aspect of their existence. Christ—the Paidagogos—is the ultimate cause of this process, and paideia becomes his instrument (Jaeger 2002, p. 33).

This broadly presented context allows us to see more clearly the connections with the text of Leo XIV, who emphasises that Christ’s kerygma ‘over the centuries, has been able to renew itself and positively inspire all the multifaceted aspects of education’ (Leo XIV 2025b, sct. 1.2). Thus, the idea present in Francis’s thought is reiterated here, namely that evangelisation transforms the whole person, society and the human community and ultimately the entire created world: the cosmos.

5. Summary

This article demonstrates a shift in the Church’s thinking regarding the understanding of education and its purpose. In the context of the changes of the last century in this regard, the insights of popes Francis and Leo XIV are particularly significant. These can be summarised as follows:

• Christian education, whilst constantly and unchangingly serving the purpose of enabling people to attain salvation, increasingly highlights the necessity of the full personal development of the individual. In this way, the Church’s teaching transcends denominational boundaries.
• In the above statements by Francis and Leo, the idea emerges that the kerygma, being Christ’s paideia, is not only a saving truth (in the narrow sense of the word) but an anthropological truth. This means that it contains content which constitutes authentic ‘channels of life’ for every human being (!) and—one might add, in a formulation akin to the description of the truths of the faith—is essential for the ‘integral development of the human person’. Such an approach does not diminish the question of salvation, but firmly embeds it within the anthropological structure, becoming the pinnacle of an individual’s personal development.
• In this context of constant reflection and mindfulness, the Church’s approach to customs, traditions, law, norms and the sacraments themselves requires careful consideration. All these means, which the Church has received from Christ and has developed through centuries of experience, contribute to the integral development of the human person. There is often a prevailing belief that the faithful must undertake certain religious duties, either because this stems from their membership in the Church or because it is an expression of their love for Christ himself. Without detracting from this understanding, however, what comes to the fore in this approach is an attitude among the faithful that they must give something of themselves because their faith demands it. When the concept of Christ’s paideia is put into practice, it will become apparent that the entirety of the Church’s evangelising activity is, first and foremost, a gift to the faithful, serving their integral development; it assists them in navigating their existential struggles and the dilemmas of choice; it supports them in times of difficulty; and ultimately, it serves their eternal salvation by enabling them to attain the fullness of joy (cf. John 17:13) in all areas of their lives.
• In conclusion, it must be noted that contemporary papal teaching, particularly that of Francis and Leo XIV, may be interpreted as reviving a broader Christian understanding of education as integral human formation rooted in theological anthropology and directed towards communion with God. This, in turn, contributes not only to the good of the individual but also serves society as a whole by fostering genuine peace in human relations.