ROME — The Vatican tried to avert a U.S. war with Iraq in late February as the United States prepared to introduce a resolution to the U.N. Security Council authorizing war with Iraq. In response, the Bush administration continued to try to talk theology to the Holy See.

Pope John Paul II met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Feb. 22, capping a week of meetings with world leaders and key diplomats such as Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The Pope has been a key voice for months in the effort to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Holy Father's new representative at the United Nations, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, addressed the Security Council on Feb. 19, saying that “to resort to force would not be just” in eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction attributed to Iraq.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican secretary of state, denied the Holy See is pacifist at all costs. The Vatican, he said, “admits legitimate defense on the part of states.”

But the Holy See is always peace making, as it “works intensely to prevent the outbreak of conflicts,” Cardinal Sodano said in an interview published Feb. 18 by the Italian newspaper Avvenire.

The cardinal noted the Pope dispatched veteran diplomat Cardinal Roger Etchegaray to meet with Saddam Hussein “to explore every possible way directed to overcoming the present tension.”

The French cardinal said the object of his meeting on Feb. 15 was to ask Saddam to do everything possible to avoid the war. Archbishop Migliore, speaking at the United Nations, affirmed the cardinal handed the Iraqi leader a papal message calling for faithful compliance with U.N. resolutions on disarmament.

For its part, the United States took the extraordinary step of sending an American theologian to Rome to justify military action against Iraq. The Vatican has warned that a preventive war to disarm Saddam would not be acceptable under just-war theory. But the theologian, Michael Novak, argued that Saddam is a threat and a war would be in self-defense.

Register correspondent Sabrina Arena Ferrisi spoke Feb. 20 with James Nicholson, U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, about the effect Novak's talk has had on Vatican officials.

The Holy See is engaged in very intense diplomatic efforts for peace. What does it say about the role of the Church in the world?

It says a great deal about the respect and moral authority of the Pope. You see so many engagements: people coming to see the Pope and others being sent out by him. The Pope is a profound moral megaphone listened to by a billion Catholics and far beyond that. The position of the Vatican is relevant because of that.

What is the ideal resolution to the Iraq situation?

The position of my government is that there needs to be a regime change. Either all of these weapons of mass destruction are removed or the leader of the regime goes. Either of those two would fulfill the regime change. The hope of the government is that it can be done peacefully. The president has shown great patience given what he knows about the dangerous weapons of mass destruction and this man.

Do you think Novak's speech helped to change some attitudes within the Vatican and elsewhere regarding the U.S. position — that an attack on Iraq falls within just-war theory?

I don't know if it changed anyone's mind, but Novak presented strong new thinking on the subject.

The logic of his argument was that the war in Iraq never ended. So it is not an ad bellum argument. It is in bello because he [Saddam] violated the conditions for peace given in 1991. He was to disarm his country of weapons of mass destruction and allow for the monitoring of inspectors to see if he had maintained this. He is in violation of the resolutions of 1991. Those resolutions still apply as lawful resolutions of the United Nations.

Novak's argument is that there is already a basis for the United Nations to take action against Saddam. He [Novak] stimulated us with the argument that for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is the responsibility of duly elected public authorities to decide whether or not to go to war.

I don't want to characterize Novak's visit as one to convince the Vatican. He was coming as a respected theologian/philosopher, one who is well known to the Vatican, to discuss this great dilemma, with its moral and civil implications. We had that in ways that exceeded expectations. He spoke with senior people in the Vatican, the Italian government and the media. Throughout his time here, Novak expressed a profound respect for the Pope and the Holy See.

If you take some statements of the Vatican on Jan. 13, which was the Pope's message to the diplomatic corps, the Pope said that war is not inevitable and that war should be used only as a last resort. That is totally consistent with the position of President Bush. There is no divide.

Some statements [from the Vatican] seem to imply that all war is immoral. Since [the Novak speech], that has been toned down. Now they say that war is a last resort. This implies that war, bad as it is, may be required. People in the Vatican are students of history. They know what appeasement costs. I don't know if Novak's speech affected this, but it seems to have come full circle in the last six weeks. Cardinal [Angelo] Sodano [Vatican secretary of state] gave an interview a few days ago where he said that the Holy See is not pacifist.

What was your role in organizing the Novak speech?

I have known Michael a long time. We are friends. I have heard him lecture many times. When I was the chair of the RNC [Republican National Committee], we worked on issues together. And by the way, I do not know if he votes Republican or not. So I asked him to come over and discuss the morality of war in the context of Iraq. We paid for his transportation under the State Department's program for public speakers.

Many high Vatican officials have made strong public statements recently for the cause of peace. Given these statements, it almost seems one must be a pacifist at all costs to be Catholic. What are your thoughts on this?

The Pope is a man of peace, and war is hell. I'm a veteran of a war and can attest to it. Peace-loving people and civil society take war very seriously. The United States, being a nation of peace with equal protection for each person, takes it very seriously. History shows that we don't just jump into war.

The Pope, being a man of peace, is a man who knows the Catholic catechism well. In that catechism is the fundamental position of the Catholic Church that spells out that there are times when war is justified. It points out that the ultimate decision is for public authorities. It is their responsibility to not go to war or go to war.

I don't think the American people, or Catholics around the world, understand that. This is why I asked Novak to speak about it. It is revela-tory to many Catholics that duly selected public authorities may have the moral obligation to go to war and protect peoples. I am pleased this was enforced by Cardinal Sodano.

Some say there is an element of anti-Americanism within the pacifism exhibited both inside and outside of the Vatican. Can you comment on this?

I am not seeing or experiencing any really anti-Americanism in the Vatican. I think there is a heightened sensitivity to try to make sure that they are not painted with that brush. The fact that they might want to engage a very important issue does not make them anti-American. Trying to explain the U.S. position does not make us anti-Holy See. There is lots of mutual respect.

The anti-Americanism [outside the Vatican] is troubling. Why is this? I think it is because the United States is the single superpower. There is jealousy and resentment and concrete disagreements over Iraq.

It is so unjustified. If you look objectively at the United States, we are the most generous and compassionate country in the world. We provide 70% of food to the World Food Program. We provide the vast majority of medicines pro bono to those who treat AIDS victims in Africa. We provide more foreign aid than any other country. And President Bush just decided to double foreign aid. President Bush has also decided on an additional $10 billion for AIDS sufferers. This is a tripling of assistance to AIDS sufferers from $5 billion to $15 billion.

We are the country that has come to the aid of so many nations in distress: in World War I, World War II, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo. And we never ask for anything in exchange. The only thing we have ever asked for was land to bury our dead.

Sabrina Arena Ferrisi writes from Rome. Zenit news service contributed to this report.