As the Holy See’s de facto foreign minister explained in London this week, the Church’s diplomats promote the common good of all peoples and maintain lines of dialogue with every nation – even when it risks misunderstanding and derision

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his novel Cancer Ward, writes that “the man with the hardest life is the man who walks out of his house every day and bangs his head against the top of the door because it’s too low”.

Setting the bar too low grinds anyone down eventually. It is a danger in the spiritual life and, I wish to venture, a danger in the practice of diplomacy. When I was a newly ordained curate working in Liverpool, I sometimes felt pangs of conscience that, as challenging as it was, my life was a little too easy, a little too comfortable.

Surprisingly, those feelings evaporated as soon as I entered the service of the Holy See. I thank God that, in my many years of working as a papal diplomat, the bar has absolutely never been set too low. The challenges that I and my colleagues are asked to face, the issues we are called to grapple with, the people and places we are confronted with, keep that bar sometimes impossibly high. That said, I am glad that the title of this evening’s talk does keep the expectations placed upon the Holy Father’s diplomats at a reasonably man ageable level. “Keeping the dream of peace alive.” I think we can just about do that.

I want to begin through something of a via negativa, pointing to some of the ways that papal diplomacy differs from the statecraft practised from the various chancelleries across the globe. After many years in my current job, almost 12 now, I am still somewhat caught off guard when, in the course of small talk on the margins of a conference or bilateral meeting, I am met with consternation when I happen to mention something about my flight over.

“You fly commercial?” I am asked, with astonishment. When I enquire as to how my interlocutors imagined I might travel, the immediate chorus of “in your own plane” reminds me once again how little is understood of the practicalities of papal diplomacy, or Holy See finances. Allow me another example. When I arrived for my first mission in the corps, in Tanzania, fresh from the Diplomatic Academy in Rome, my predecessor was still in situ at the apostolic nunciature. That time of overlap was useful to learn the ropes, so I was keen to take full advantage of it. However, his continued presence meant that there was no bedroom available for me. Rather than be banished at night to a distant house run by a religious order, I put a mattress on the floor of my office and got on with it.

Welcome to the papal diplomatic service. The Holy See does not have the kind of financial or material resources that support and amplify the diplomacy of so many modern states. This makes it harder for us, for instance, to attend international conferences, or engage support staff to facilitate the work of the nunciatures, but it goes hand in hand with something that is distinctly to our advantage. The Holy See does not have commercial interests. We are not in competition with our colleagues in the diplomatic corps for trade deals or direct investment. Nor are we engaging with governments to advance our economic interests. Being unencumbered by such concerns allows the Holy See a far greater freedom than is enjoyed by many of our diplomatic counterparts.

Another point of contrast with many other diplomatic services is the Holy See’s commitment to keeping lines of dialogue open. When it is phrased like that, safely in the abstract, it receives plaudits and contented head-nods but when seen in practice it is often the cause of some very strong criticism. Successive popes have been condemned for receiving this head of government, or that politician, but the diplomacy of the Holy See seeks to promote the common good of all peoples, regardless of who their leaders are. Maintaining lines of dialogue, while often frustrating and time consuming, is crucial in keeping the dream of peace alive in today’s world. Sometimes that may mean talking to people who have disrupted that peace in the first place, but Churchill’s remark, as distilled by Harold Macmillan, that jaw-jaw is better than war war, is not to be taken lightly, especially when the human suffering that war brings is all too evident in too many places today. If the talking stops, the fighting won’t.

While the Holy See promotes democracy, it is, of course, not a democracy itself, and this contrast with so many modern states allows it to endure a little more easily the negative press that may accrue to meeting a world leader who has, to put it mildly, not covered himself in glory. The principle extends also to politicians who, while democratically elected and peacefully governing, promote positions with which the Holy See profoundly disagrees. Speaking to them is not the same as endorsing them or everything they do, but dialogue with the leaders of peoples is an essential means in keeping the dream of peace alive.

Another rather stark point of contrast between the Holy See and other diplomacies can be noted at any diplomatic reception. Cast your eye about the room and it will not take long to identify the apostolic nuncio. He’s the one in the collar. The Holy See is almost always represented by a priest, and, at the ambassadorial level, by an archbishop. Priests, by training and vocation, will talk to anyone. Some ambassadors can become rather fixated on rank and diplomatic level, and would be loath to have to engage with a mere deputy head of mission at another legation. A good papal diplomat, like any good priest, should be as comfortable talking to the ambassador’s driver as to the ambassador herself. That sort of openness can lead to information and insight which enriches the vision of the papal nunciature in any given country and can often lead to a deeper understanding of what is really going on on the ground.

In addition, the nunciature has a fundamental relationship with the local Church and through that rapport often has access to a network of people and sources of information which no other diplomatic mission could dream of. In a very few steps – often just nuncio to local bishop to parish priest – the Secretariat of State can find out what is going on in even the remotest parts of a country, which, espe cially in times of crisis, can be particularly useful. Keeping the dream of peace alive means understanding what issues challenge the preservation of that peace in any given place. Through the local Church the nunciature can see the country of its competence “from the inside” and those insights are priceless.

Of course that insight also goes in the other direction. Politicians are not blank slates: they come with their own histories and their own faith, or lack thereof. Sometimes I can find myself sitting opposite leaders who have publicly declared their contempt for the Church and all it stands for, and sometimes that animosity has not been limited to mere words. Yet I have also found myself moved by the faith and sincerity of a great many politicians I have met over my years of service to the Church. Just as its rapport with the local Church grants a powerful perspective to the nunciature, so too are Catholic politicians able to engage with the Holy See in a different manner to their contemporaries. It may be hoped that their education and formation in the faith will have made them more comfortable with concepts like the common good, solidarity and subsidiarity. Here in the United Kingdom, as the first cradle Catholic since the Reformation takes up the role of His Majesty’s Prime Minister, it will be interesting for all of us to see to what extent his Catholic formation guides his steps. Andy Burnham has already spoken with conviction of the influence of Catholic Social Teaching and Archbishop Derek Worlock.

A final point of contrast that cannot go unmentioned is of course who papal diplomats seek to represent; the Successor of St Peter. The Pope is a unique figure on the world stage, and his voice has a singular authority and reach. He is our chief diplomat and without him the voice of the Holy See becomes but a whisper. I was keenly aware of this during Pope Francis’ final illness, when the Church and the world were deprived of his words and presence for weeks at a time. The Holy See does not possess weapons or infantry, divisions or battalions, but it does have the voice of the Holy Father, which cries out for the poor, the needy and the defenceless. Our job as his representatives is to amplify that voice, to help it reach the places where it is most needed and to encourage states, leaders, and people to listen to it and act upon it. His very presence on the world stage keeps the dream of peace alive for a great many people, even beyond the faithful. That dream was instantly renewed by Pope Leo’s first words from the balcony of St Peter’s on the night of his election, when he spoke of a peace that was both “disarmed and disarming”.

John Maynard Keynes notoriously lamented that “I work for a government I despise towards ends I think criminal”. No papal diplomat has any excuse to harbour such sentiments. We are not united by nationality or language, but we are united by something far stronger and deeper, faith in Jesus Christ. The work of an envoy of the Holy See is not the same as that of a parish priest, but it forms part of the same mission in the same vineyard. Being able to serve the Gospel through this work is what gives it its greatest meaning for the priests who form the corps and who work alongside us, and it is that faith that drives them to serve, sometimes at great personal cost and in extremely difficult cir cumstances. For the Pope’s diplomats, as for any Christian, peace is not just a dream or the result of a plan or programme: it is a gift which comes from God. Jesus Christ has promised us his peace, and God keeps his promises, though not always in the way we might expect.

There are of course multiple similarities between the Holy See’s diplomacy and that of other powers. I wish to highlight just one in particular; the need for patience. Cardinal Casaroli, Secretary of State to Pope John Paul II, gave his posthumously published memoir a title that will resonate with any diplomat, papal or otherwise: The Martyrdom of Patience, in which he writes about his work on behalf of the Church behind the Iron Curtain.

Diplomacy is often a painstakingly slow endeavour, with progress measured in increments that may not be easily observable to those outside the process. The Holy See has a long tradition of diplomatic activity and a history which shows that the long game is in fact the only game worth playing, but that does not lessen the martyrdom aspect of that patience for those involved in the here and now. In so many situations time is measured not in hours or days or weeks, but in lives and in human suffering. Keeping the dream of peace alive is of course never enough. The goal is for peace, and all the good that comes from it, to flourish. This was the essence of my recent visits to both Kyiv and Moscow.

How does the Holy See strive to achieve that goal? The first and most obvious is just showing up. The network of apostolic nunciatures and delegations spread across the face of the Earth is a testament to the commitment of the Holy See to engage with the international community and support all peoples. That commitment does not change with changed circumstances, as, for example, the presence of a nuncio in Damascus throughout the years of conflict there or the work of the chargé d’affaires (ad interim) currently serving in Tehran bears testament. Indeed, my first appointment as an apos tolic nuncio was to take the place of Archbishop Michael Courtney, who had been shot and killed in the course of his duties in Burundi. The Holy See seeks to be present to support the local Church and to manifest the solicitude of the Pope for all peoples, no matter what.

If you visit the Bayeux Tapestry while it is on display here in London, one of the most striking images you will see is that of Bishop Otto, half-brother to William the Conqueror and probably the one who commissioned the great chronicle of the Battle of Hastings. He is heartily engaged in the fight but, in obedience to the law prohibiting clerics from the use of the sword, he is ready to dispatch his enemies with a mace. The Holy See, in contrast to the good bishop, consistently advocates for the observance of international law, in letter and in spirit. A system based in law is the surest way to prevent the collapse of the international community into a logic of “might is right”. One of the hard-learned lessons of the two world wars was that the rights of small nations and individual peoples must be protected and defended. The means through which that has been done for many years is the multilateral system. I am all too aware of the deficiencies in the United Nations and the frustration that many feel about how it acts, or fails to act, but however much it may need reform, such a system is the best way yet devised to deal with disputes in a manner that does not end in the spilling of blood. The Holy See, with permanent missions in New York and Geneva, and representation at numerous UN agencies and other international organisations, is an unequivocal advocate for multilateralism and views it as an indispensable means for keeping the dream of peace alive.

What sort of issues does the Holy See advocate for through its diplomacy? It works to promote fundamental rights, especially the right to religious liberty. It seeks to protect the rights of the local Churches. It advocates for justice, in both law and economics. It pro motes integral human development, especially education, as a means of promoting and maintaining peace. It stands up for the sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death. It highlights the need to protect Creation. Beyond those great themes and issues, it seeks to aid nations and peoples where it can. That commitment to sharing “the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted” (Gaudium et Spes) extends the list of things that the Holy See cares about and advocates for.

Perhaps one of the most interesting additions to this list in recent times has been the call for greater guidance regarding the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. That issue is especially significant because it represents one of the few occasions when I can recall business and civil leaders actively calling for moral guidance on such a new frontier from the Holy See. Pope Leo’s encyclical letter Magnifica Humanitas responds to that call and the question remains the object of intense reflection on the part of the Holy See and the Church in general. That call for guidance highlights once again the importance of the voice of the Holy Father. Despite increased secularisation in many parts of the world and, with it, perhaps an increased cynicism about values and ethics, there is still a desire to hear the voice of the Church on the great issues of the day. That voice does not speak for its own interest, but for the common good of all; that is an essential part of what makes it necessary and significant. That does not mean, of course, that that voice is immediately accepted or left uncontested. Frequently it is a voice that cries in the wilderness.

When it comes to papal encyclicals, while there are those who prefer the older approach of assigning somewhat random names to the documents, taken from their opening line, the modern approach of trying to sum the whole thing up in the first two or three words does have the advantage of immediately placing focus on the central point of the text. In the case of Magnifica Humanitas that focus is clearly directed to humanity, to the centrality of the human person, rather than just to questions about the AI models themselves – their capacities and nature – important as those questions are. The first question is always: what are their consequences for the human person? That centrality is not unique to that encyclical but is rather a consistent point in Church teaching and indeed in papal diplomacy. The individual, unique human person, gathered into families, communities, and societies, must remain at the centre of all politics and diplomacy, commerce and development. The Holy See continually calls states and their leaders back to that most basic reality. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

I have now served at the Holy See as Secretary for Relations with States and International Organisations through the tenures of 10 British Foreign Secretaries, but, so as not to show preference, I would like to quote one of their predecessors from a little before my time. Sir Edward Grey’s famous remark, made at his window in the Foreign Office in 1914 on the eve of the Great War, that “the lamps are going out all over Europe, and we shall not see them lit again in our life time”, captures sentiments that have been felt by many diplomats across many centuries. Too often jaw-jaw collapses into war-war and this can lead to disillusionment and even despair. I do not want to pretend that diplo mats of the Holy See are entirely immune from those sentiments. Sometimes our efforts or initiatives fall short or fail entirely, and, especially when we are working for the liberation of civilians in war-torn countries or trying to have children spared the worst effects of life in such places, that lack of success can be very disheartening indeed.

Yet for us, our lamp, our light, never goes out because it does not come from any earthly source but rather from Jesus Christ, the light of the world. Even when it seems that the dream of peace is being just about kept going through life support and intensive care, we do not lose hope.

The Tablet Lecture 2026, sponsored by CCLA Investment Management, was given on 13 October 2026.

 Archbishop Paul Gallagher KCMG has served as the Holy See’s Secretary for Relations with States since 2014.