On Tuesday, the New York Times published an article reporting that Pope Francis has offered to act as mediator amidst political conflict in Venezuela.

In January, Juan Guaido challenged Nicolas Maduro's hold on the Venezuelan presidency after swearing himself in as Interim President until new elections can be held. The 35-year-old, who leads the National Assembly, was formally recognized as legitimate by the United States not long after. The U.S.' allies in the western hemisphere— Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and Canada, to name a few— quickly fell in line.

On Monday, the majority of European states, including Portugal and Spain, threw their support behind Guaido. However, the European Institution as a body was prevented from issuing a statement of recognizance by Italy's veto. Italy is joined by Mexico and— you guessed it— Russia.

As the world falls into all-too-familiar blocs, the need for peaceful settlement is clearer than ever. The question is, does the Vatican have the authority to facilitate it?

The last time Venezuela received international mediation, between 2002 and 2004, it was conducted by The Organization of American States, then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and the United Nations Development Program. In 1998, a boundary dispute between Peru and Ecuador was resolved by a Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and U.S. joint coalition. Both examples have something in common; they are made up of an amalgamation of states that both balance each others' interests and hold regional insight.

Precedent has not been set for international mediation by a religious body. If Pope Francis were to participate in mediation procedures in Venezuela, the Vatican would hold a new power.

Indeed, the possibility of the Pope's influence raises questions regarding the extent to which religious figures should play a role in international policy. A strong argument can be made for Pope Francis' exclusion from the case. The U.S., amongst others, has consistently advocated for the separation of church and state, and many argue that separating one's religion from his or her policy is impossible.

However, regardless of our emotive response to the separation of church and state, most of our laws are centered around religious acts and not religious people. Lemon v. Kurtzman, the country's foundation of the separation principle, established that any action, regardless of the religious affiliation or rank of its perpetrators, is protected by the First Amendment as long as it is secular in purpose— which, in the secular state of Venezuela, selecting a leader would be.

Of course, U.S. law isn't what matters here. International law is supranational, and it holds that intervention in a state's internal affairs by another single state is legal only in cases of consent. The United Nations Guidance for Effective Mediation, annexed to SG Resolution A/66/811, lays out the preconditions for one to act as a mediator of international conflict. Among them are consent and international law and its normative frameworks. Maduro has already consented to Pope Francis' intervention; if Guaido were to do the same, it would be justified.

Moreover, the international realm has effectively determined that Vatican City is not a religious organization, as some may argue, but a state. Since 1964, the Holy See, the governing body of Vatican City, has held Permanent Observer status at the United Nations through the Vatican's status as a Nonmember State. In awarding this status, the UN has in principle acquiesced that the Vatican fulfills the basic requirements for statehood: a government, a permanent population, a defined territory, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Indeed, since its installment of a Permanent Observer, the Holy See has become signatory to a number of international treaties, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Of course, the Vatican's ascension to the UN has not passed without opposition. Opponents cite the lack of an equivalent for other world religions and the preference that is inherently given to the Western hemisphere by the Vatican's inclusion. However, though valid, this argument is made irrespective of the facts of international law and rests on a subjective basis.

In reality, Pope Francis is unlikely to play a formal role in Venezuelan compromise. On February 7, Uruguay and Mexico will co-host representatives from at least 10 states and organizations in Montevideo for the International Conference on Venezuela. Participants will include representatives from the EU, the Lima Group, and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), in a line of action similar to the above-referenced negotiations regarding Venezuela, Peru, and Ecuador. Since Guaido declared his presidency in interim, Uruguay and Mexico have shied from withdrawing support from the Maduro government. The conference is intended to host other countries 'neutral' to the conflict, with the goal of creating "a new dialogue mechanism" that will "help restore peace in that country."