while hostilities were still in progress.  I inquired if my recollection was  
 correct that Germany, in 1918, indicated to the Holy See tht it might   
indicate to President Wilson that Germany was prepared to discuss terms of   
peace.  He confirmed this statement ans stated that similar action had   
been taken in a number of cases in recent times involving disputes of a   
more or less restricted character; that , in the role of mediator or   
counciliator, the Holy See was free to act.  on a second feature as to the   
participation of the Holy See in a post-war conference, he confirmed that   
this raisd many questions.  The Holy See did not wish to involve itslef   
directly but only as an adiviser or conciliator in respect, for instance,   
to territorial settlements, political adjustments or economic plans; that   
its functions in the spiritual fiels were limited to the interpretation of   
the moral code as applied to human conduct and that it could not become   
involved in disputes the aftermath of which might bring enemity towards   
the Holy see, based upon its particiption in respect to questions over   
which it had no proper authority.  I then inquired if this would indicate   
that the Holy See would not be inclined to take part in a peace confernce   
and, at its conclusion, to sing the peace treaty.  This question caused   
some thoughtful consideration by the Cardinal and the answer was not   
entirely satifactory for the reason that, while the Vatican could sit in   
at a peace confernce and could sign the peace treaty, it would have to   
conform strictly to the principle last discussed, that is, that it could   
 not involve itslef in questions of poltical, territorial,  
 
                             or