ROME – British Ambassador to the Holy See Chris Trott has voiced excitement over the recent election of Pope Leo XIV and has said he is looking forward to continuing collaboration with the world’s greatest soft power.

He also voiced his belief that the fact that Pope Leo is from the United States, while spending some 30 years as a missionary in Peru, won’t change the way diplomats or states engage with the Holy See, saying it’s about the issues, not the man.

“I don’t think it’s the nationality… I think what would change is if he started talking about a different set of issues” from previous popes, Trott said in a sit-down interview with Crux.

Both Benedict XVI and Francis, and other popes before them, took a consistent line on issues such as climate and migration, he said, saying he does not expect this to change with Leo.

“The 21st century diplomat spends a lot of time thinking about soft power, as do our governments. We have to think about it, but the papacy just does it,” Trott said, saying the Holy See has been a key partner in dialogue on issues such as climate, human trafficking, and sexual violence in conflict.

“That’s all stuff that naturally comes to the Holy See,” and governments around the world are beginning to talk about more seriously values diplomacy, he said, saying, “That’s why I love being ambassador here…I enjoy the work that we do in parallel.”

Please read below for Crux’s interview with British Ambassador to the Holy See Chris Trott:

Crux: You were in the square, what was your reaction?

Trott: It was an extraordinary moment. I never expected to be in Saint Peter’s Square for the announcement of a pope, and the level of excitement and expectation and the fact that you really don’t know in advance. There’s very little in this modern world that you don’t know before it hits you. And the way that this was done and the chap coming out and reading the name in Latin… (we) had been doing our research, so we’d worked out once we’d got as far as Robertus Franciscus, we knew who was coming, but the whole thing I thought was spectacular. I loved the fact that they got all of the other electing cardinals out onto the balconies, which was wonderful because you could see the entire group, all of them smiling from ear to ear. You got the impression that this was the Church coming together.

The other thing I felt very strongly, obviously representing a country that has lots of Catholics but isn’t a Catholic country, was actually how important this election was not just to Catholic faithful, but actually to the world. I mean, you know, the way that Francis and indeed before him, Benedict, and you could argue further back, had shaped the papacy. It wasn’t about talking just to Catholics, it was about talking about problems that worry everyone and affect everyone. So, I was thinking about that as I look around the crowd, because yes, there were a lot of Catholics there, but there were also others there who were as excited as we were about it.

As a diplomat, what makes the papacy so interesting?

I think the 21st century diplomat spends a lot of time thinking about soft power, as do our governments. We have to think about it, but the papacy just does it. So, the way in which Pope Francis used his Twitter feed and the way in which I am sure that Leo will continue to use his Twitter feed, is a demonstration of how they can reach to every corner of the world, almost, and what they are talking about is relevant to everybody. So, it just marries that together.

We spend a lot of time as diplomats trying to think about how we promote a sensible dialogue on sexual violence in conflict or even on climate or on human trafficking, and actually, that’s all stuff that naturally comes to the Holy See, and to the diplomats of the Curia. So, this is the world’s top diplomat, in a way, on some of that soft power stuff, on some of our values stuff, and governments have recently started to talk about values and diplomacy in the sense that it does.

That’s why I love being ambassador here, I enjoy the work that we do in parallel, not just on South Sudan, which obviously is my first passion, but, on all of the other conflicts around the world or all of the desertification or almost anything, it’s just fascinating to see how the Vatican engages organizations.

Did anything strike you particularly about his words from the balcony Thursday after his election?

A couple of things really struck me. I loved the fact that he used Spanish to reach out to the Church that has been his life. He’s an American, I recognize that, but he also used Spanish to recognize that he owes his progression in his career and his loyalty to the Peruvian Church and to the people in the villages in Peru that he’s got to know as over the last 30, 40 years. So that really struck me. Him talking about peace and bridges was really powerful. Of course, we all know that pontifex means bridge, but you know, we don’t think about that all the time, and it was striking that he was, on his first afternoon as pope in his first hour as pope.

I was struck by his desire in a very respectful way, to refer back to Pope Francis. You got a sense that there was a lot of what Pope Francis had thought important that he would continue to value, but then you look to what he was wearing, and you thought he’s going to set his own standard, and it’s not going to be exactly the same as Pope Francis was. And I don’t think we should judge him for that, (or) whether he moves back into the Apostolic Palace. Of course it’s interesting, but that’s not who he is. He has an office to assume, and he needs to assume it in the way he feels is appropriate, but that isn’t going to change the fact that he, more than I read today, rode on a donkey amongst the villagers in Peru for most of his missionary work.

Many observers for a long time had said there could be no American pope because of the role that the United States occupies on the global stage, while others more recently have said that geography is no longer a consideration. It’s not the country, it’s the man. As a diplomat, is that true?

I think it is true. Of course, it was a part of the consideration when the cardinals were sitting down, but I think the themes or the issues that the Church is grappling with stretch globally. Why would you just think, if you were an American cardinal, about an American, why would you just think if you were an Italian cardinal about an Italian? You’d be looking for somebody who has your vision of the right level of mission, missionary, administrator and pastor, and I think that’s the basis on which he would have been chosen.

What I find interesting, but I don’t know the answer to, is whether an American would have been chosen who hadn’t spent 40 years of his life in the mountains of Peru, and maybe that’s the difference. Maybe at this stage, they’re not ready to appoint somebody who has spent their entire adult life in the U.S., but who knows? I think it is a global Church. It is the Catholic Church, and I think the choices that they make and the issues they deal with are stretched beyond state boundaries. Although, of course, states are always going to want to claim and celebrate when one of their citizens does well inside the Church. I’ve had dinners when they’ve been appointing a British cardinal, for example, because it’s a recognition that the United Kingdom is contributing at a senior and profound level to this extraordinary global institution.

There is that sense there, but I don’t think a responsible cardinal, and I think they were all taking that responsibility incredibly seriously, would have been governed purely by nationality. I really don’t.

At the diplomatic, state level, do you think his nationality could change how the world reacts to him, especially in the era of Donald Trump and the way he is shaking things up on the global stage?

I don’t think it’s the nationality that would do that. I think what would change is if he started talking about a different set of issues from the ones that Pope Francis started talking about, and effectively, as I said, when Benedict died, to a number of people, Pope Francis had just continued for instance focusing on climate just as Benedict had done so. If he if he changes the focus of the Vatican, then we have to work out how to respond, but I don’t think his nationality affects, or indeed the congregation he belongs to, whether he’s an Augustinian or Jesuit or whether he’s a Franciscan or a Benedictine. In terms of what states do, I don’t think it would have affected us, because what we’re interested in is what the Vatican stands for, and how the Vatican engages on the international stage in support of issues that are of interest to us.

What kind of issues, I mean, are you preparing for, you know, with this? 

It’s quite clear that the climate is going to remain an issue of his. It’s quite clear that the movement of people, which I think is beyond just migration, it’s also about trafficking, it’s about conflict, it’s about poverty, it’s about the impact of climate change on that band in Africa that is becoming desert, it’s all of those things that I expect him to have a view on.

I would have thought he’d seen the impact of a lot of those things directly when he was in Peru. I would have thought, he’s Pope, but he’s also human, and he will bring those early experiences with him. So, a conversation about international global financing for development and debt relief or something, you would expect him to continue to engage on that discussion, even if he has a slightly different view from that of Francis.

Will the diplomatic corps have the opportunity to meet the pope?

We understand that Friday, in advance of his inauguration, he is going to invite the diplomatic corps to the Apostolic Palace, and I imagine it will be something like the annual greeting that Pope Francis did in January. Whether he will make the sort of five page speech like Francis would have done, or whether at this stage it’s too early for him to be talking about policy and whether it’s just a salutation, I don’t know, but I’m expecting to dust off my uniform and go into the Vatican on Friday with all of my colleagues and be lined up in protocol order to shake the hand at least, which I’m really excited about.

Is there anything in particular you want to say to him?

I’m sure I’ll think of lots of things I could say, but I’ll forget them all, and something spontaneous will happen, and I will say that. Obviously, I will be shaking his hand as a representative of the King and of my government, so I will express the congratulations of both the King and the Prime Minister and my own, but then beyond that, I don’t know.

One final question. Your tenure has coincided with several major shifts, in your country and the Vatican – the death of Benedict XVI and Queen Elizabeth, and the papacy and death of Francis and the election of Pope Leo XIV. What is that like for you as a diplomat? Do you feel like you are watching history? 

The thing I love about the job I do, and I imagine it’s quite similar for you as a journalist, is that you don’t ever set out to make history, because that’s usually a bad thing when a journalist or a diplomat makes history, but you are incredibly privileged because you get to witness history. That’s the way I feel about this job. I took Prince Charles to Nelson Mandela’s funeral in his home village in South Africa, not the state one in Johannesburg, but in the little village. It was a five-hour extraordinary ceremony. Just the privilege of being at something like that is something you would never forget.

I feel like now that I’ve been incredibly lucky and I’m incredibly grateful to my colleagues for the support they give me in terms of actually delivering what the British government needs me to deliver while I’m standing there going, wow, this is amazing.

Follow Elise Ann Allen on X: @eliseannallen