justified objection to the general form of the note, the Vatican vindicated its avoidance of certain topics in its note of August 1st. The Pope, it was urged, was unwilling and unable to act as a judge or to discuss the question of innocence or guilt in a document, in which his sole purpose was to be an intermediary with a view to bringing about peace negotiations in the interests of all mankind. If he had acted as a judge, he would have defeated the aims of his peace movement at the very outset.
This statement should be carefully noticed. Although the Vatican does not expressly say so, it again draws a distinction between its spiritual mission and its political activity. In its former capacity it evidently associates itself with the duty of being the supreme protector of morality, justice, and right. In its capacity as a political factor, however, it feels itself entitled to act as any other political power would do. This twofold function naturally results in a twofold code of ethics, which forms the most distinguishing feature of the Vatican policy during the war. The conclusion to which this inevitably brings me is, that religious and ecclesiastical matters in general should be excluded from politics. The only possible solution of the problem of the Church in modern democratic States is the return of the Papacy to the spiritual mission which it followed in the early period of Christianity, and a free Church in a free State.
At the same time it would be political blindness not to see that the Papacy, the Catholic Church, and Catholicism as a whole constitute an important international factor, and that they will continue to be a powerful spiritual factor. It was these considerations which prompted me during the war to induce the Vatican to adopt at least a neutral attitude towards our movement, and for the same reason I have always been anxious since the war to keep up a positive policy with the Vatican. This means that I desire to defend the interests of the State resolutely and consistently wherever the policy of the Vatican may be at variance with them, while as regards the spiritual mission of the Vatican, it is my aim to preserve an attitude of tolerance and respect, demanding, of course, the same in return. This is the only possible positive ecclesiastical policy for our State, as for others. It seems to me that the development of the Papacy in the future will involve a gradual loss of political influence and a corresponding increase of moral and spiritual influence.
