[Festus]

Originally Posted by Manach

Ironically, given the human rights violations that the Chinese state had and has inflicted on lay/cleric Catholics - our Foreign minister has greeted their VP so warmly.

atheists have a tendency to gloss over the misdeeds of other atheists

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

You think its a joke to call the Grand Masters Villa a sovereign State. I think its a joke to call the Vatican a sovereign State. As you say, it's a confidence trick; it all depends on who is prepared to recognize your sovereignty and how important they are.

Look, Europe is well-supplied with little statelets of perhaps questionable viability. It’s not just the Vatican and San Marino; there’s also Monaco and Andorra and Leichtenstein and Malta and arguably Luxembourg. They all have microscopic territories and populations, and mostly have little or no economy that could possibly interest anyone except their immediate neighbour.

There used to be many more - much of Germany and Italy was a patchwork of city-states, tiny republics and chocolate-box monarchies - but they were swallowed up as the European nation-states coalesced. These ones survive because, basically, for one reason or another it suits their large and powerful neighbours that they should survive.

They all enjoy international recognition, but most have only a handful of resident embassies or none at all. Even Luxembourg, a full member of the EU and of NATO, and the home of a number of international institutions (like the European Court of Justice) hosts fewer than a dozen resident embassies. The Vatican, by contrast, has nearly seventy.

Why is this? Well, there’s a variety of reasons, but there are a couple of truths we can identify straight away:

- It has nothing to do with the Vatican’s territory. No country maintains an embassy to the Holy See under the impression that the Vatican is an extensive place. Consequently comments about the Vatican’s territory are really not pertinent to the question of whether someone should maintain an embassy there. They were never there for the territory.

- Ditto with regard to population and economy.

- No country maintains an embassy there in an attempt to bolster the international status of Catholic church. Countries are self-interested, and they maintain embassies in their own interests, not the interests of other powers.

Originally Posted by recedite

When the Holy See was deprived of all territory, they were only recognised by a few, mostly Catholic, countries, until they regained the Vatican.

Not so at all. When the remains of the Papal States were occupied by Italy in 1870, I’m not aware that any country withdrew recognition of the Holy See. Even the Italians recognized the Holy See, though the Holy See wouldn’t recognize Italy. Nor, so far as I know, did any country with an accredited ambassador withdraw their ambassador, or replace a resident-ambassador with a non-resident ambassador, or withdrew the reciprocal accreditation of the papal nuncio in their own state. Nor was it “mostly Catholic countries” which maintained resident embassies to the Holy See; Russia, Prussia, the Netherlands and Switzerland all did so. In fact during the period when the Holy See had no territory at all, the number of resident embassies in Rome, far from shrinking, grew substantially. Likewise the Holy See continued to negotiate and sign treaties during this period, and not just with Catholic powers.

The establishment of the Vatican City State in 1929 was not followed by a further rise in dipolmatic accreditation. (Why would it be? The territory of the SCV does not add anything significant to the diplomatic weight of the Holy See.) The next wave of new embassies didn’t come until the years after the Second World War, and this reflected not a change in the diplomatic status of the Holy See, but a large number of newly-independent ex-colonies establishing their own diplomatic networks.

Some countries which had only consular representation in the Papal States withdrew it after 1870, on the grounds that there was now no consular work to be done. The US would be the most prominent example. But even those countries continued to recognize the Holy See.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by recedite

AFAIK the British Head of State still cannot be RC,

correct . it is part of the british constitution. they cant even marry a catholic but they can marry a Muslim Jew or atheist.

this going back to the legalistic idea that the loyalty of catholics would be divided between the monarch and the pope.

Not the legally enshrined idea that the Monarch is head of a non Roman Catholic church as well as head of state?

Presumably the same legalistic concept allowed for the penal laws to be introduced here. Perhaps if the pope had stayed out of politics and sovereign affairs, things would have been easier for catholics in these islands.

I think it a bit rich to interpret an enshrined division saying that the Monarch has certainly NOT to be catholic as an choice for Catholics to divide their loyalties. If the Monarch was not allowed to be black or Jewish would you interpret a law denying the vote to blacks or Jews as helping them to express their loyalty t the state or would you just view it as racist or anti Semitic? Perhaps if Nelson Mandela had stayed out of politics it might have been easier on blacks in South Africa eh?

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

AFAIK the British Head of State still cannot be RC, this going back to the legalistic idea that the loyalty of catholics would be divided between the monarch and the pope. Presumably the same legalistic concept allowed for the penal laws to be introduced here.

There are two relevant rules. First, the British monarch has to be a Protestant, and has to "enter into communion with the Church of England as by law established". Secondly, neither the monarch nor anyone who wishes to remain in line for the throne may marry a Catholic.

Originally Posted by recedite

Perhaps if the pope had stayed out of politics and sovereign affairs, things would have been easier for catholics in these islands.

These rules were introduced after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Since the Pope togged out (diplomatically speaking) for the revolutionaries in that particular stoush, it's perhaps far-fetched to attribute the rules to a distaste for the pope and a desire to reduce his influence. On planet Earth, these rules are normally attributed to a distaste for James II who, though a Catholic, was not a pope and did not enjoy the support of popes.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

The establishment of the Vatican City State in 1929 was not followed by a further rise in dipolmatic accreditation......
Some countries which had only consular representation in the Papal States withdrew it after 1870, on the grounds that there was now no consular work to be done. The US would be the most prominent example. But even those countries continued to recognize the Holy See.

The legal situation at the time was that the Holy See could continue to have ambassadors, but only at the discretion of Italy. An Italian government could have withdrawn that privilege at any time. This is the treaty. Having sovereignty over some small territory or population was a technical requirement or qualification that allowed the Holy See to engage in full diplomatic activities without the permission of Italy. Without that small amount of temporal power, they would now be in a similar position to the Red Cross in Switzerland, ie only a guest.

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

There are two relevant rules. First, the British monarch has to be a Protestant, and has to "enter into communion with the Church of England as by law established". Secondly, neither the monarch nor anyone who wishes to remain in line for the throne may marry a Catholic.

Actually the second one was voted out by commonwealth heads last October, although there are probably some laws to be updated before thats finalised.
What I am saying in regard to the first one, is that Henry 8th didn't like the pope telling him what to do, and a large number of the people in England felt the same way, so he made himself head of the church in his own jurisdiction. Its a control issue. From then on, catholics were suspected of having divided loyalties, especially as the pope gave strong political support to Spain; England's main rival and threat.

These rules were introduced after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Since the Pope togged out (diplomatically speaking) for the revolutionaries in that particular stoush, it's perhaps far-fetched to attribute the rules to a distaste for the pope and a desire to reduce his influence. On planet Earth, these rules are normally attributed to a distaste for James II who, though a Catholic, was not a pope and did not enjoy the support of popes.

Well yes, the pope did side with William at the Battle of the Boyne, but only because at the time he was more afraid of the French taking over his Vatican States than he was of the English or Dutch. A fear which turned out to be well founded.
It only adds to my point about the Holy See; that looking after it's own temporal affairs often took precedence over the interests of catholics in these islands.

Originally Posted by ISAW

Not the legally enshrined idea that the Monarch is head of a non Roman Catholic church as well as head of state?
I think it a bit rich to interpret an enshrined division saying that the Monarch has certainly NOT to be catholic as an choice for Catholics to divide their loyalties.

I'll just point out that its the interpretation of English puritans hundreds of years ago. I'm not saying its a valid one today. At the time the pope was the head of a religion and also head of a foreign state, a state which sometimes sided with enemy states. Therefore it made sense to them to retain a monarch with a similar mindset to themselves.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

There are two relevant rules. First, the British monarch has to be a Protestant, and has to "enter into communion with the Church of England as by law established". Secondly, neither the monarch nor anyone who wishes to remain in line for the throne may marry a Catholic.


These rules were introduced after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Since the Pope togged out (diplomatically speaking) for the revolutionaries in that particular stoush, it's perhaps far-fetched to attribute the rules to a distaste for the pope and a desire to reduce his influence. On planet Earth, these rules are normally attributed to a distaste for James II who, though a Catholic, was not a pope and did not enjoy the support of popes.

Well the Provost of Trinity College Dublin has to be Anglican and that dates ...1592?? so i would think the rules are as far back as Protestantism itself, specifically Henry VIII's version of it. More than a century and a half before 1688.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

The legal situation at the time was that the Holy See could continue to have ambassadors, but only at the discretion of Italy. An Italian government could have withdrawn that privilege at any time. This is the treaty. Having sovereignty over some small territory or population was a technical requirement or qualification that allowed the Holy See to engage in full diplomatic activities without the permission of Italy. Without that small amount of temporal power, they would now be in a similar position to the Red Cross in Switzerland, ie only a guest.

Well, that’s a bit of an oversimplification. The Law of Guarantees was Italy basically saying “we not only recognize the sovereignty of the pope, but we are enshrining that in our law”. (This isn’t usually done.) It was their attempt to try to unilaterally settle the Roman question by extending to the popes everything they might wish, except control of Italian territory.

The popes rejected this on precisely the argument that you cite - it made papal sovereignty appear to be the creation of Italian law.

Since all the embassies to the popes were on Italian territory, in theory the Italians could have repealed the law at any time, and ejected all the embassies. In practice, though, this would have been an attack not only on the papacy but on all the countries whose embassies they were, so there was never any likelihood that the Italians would do this.

The significant change in the Lateran treaty of 1929 was not that it granted the Holy See a token territory. (It did that, but the territory was so token that it wouldn’t solve the “embassy problem”; all the embassies to the Holy See are still in Italy, not in the SCV, and the Italians could still throw them out if so minded.) The significant change was that it was not a law of the Italian Parliament but a treaty between the Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See. It therefore did not appear to create or validate papal sovereignty, but simply to recognize it as an existing reality.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

The significant change was that it was not a law of the Italian Parliament but a treaty between the Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See.

How can it be a "treaty" unless the pope controlled a Sovereign State. That would only have been be an "understanding" between Italy and the Bishop of Rome. It was a chicken and egg situation, in which The Vatican as a city state had to be created in order to sign the treaty.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

How can it be a "treaty" unless the pope controlled a Sovereign State. That would only have been be an "understanding" between Italy and the Bishop of Rome. It was a chicken and egg situation, in which The Vatican as a city state had to be created in order to sign the treaty.

Couldn't be more wrong, I'm afraid. The state wasn't created in order to allow the treaty to be signed. Other way around, in fact - the treaty created the state. The Vatican City State was created by treaty between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy. At the time the pope negotiated and signed the treaty, there was no state. The Vatican City State exists because, and only because, the Holy See was a sovereign with the capacity to enter into legally effective and binding treaties.

And, in fact, the papacy negotiated, signed and ratified numerous treaties between 1870 and 1929, at a time when it undoubtedly controlled no territory. This is in fact one of the textbook examples trotted out to show that you don't have to have territory to be a sovereign.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

the papacy negotiated, signed and ratified numerous treaties between 1870 and 1929, at a time when it undoubtedly controlled no territory.

They may have signed a few treaties during that period, but they don't appear to have been able to legally ratify them until after the deal with Mussolini.
It's also noteworthy that the USA "played it by the book" and suspended diplomatic relations with the Holy See during that period, even if some other (more sympathetic) countries took a more "flexible" view of the meaning of the word sovereignty.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

They may have signed a few treaties during that period, but they don't appear to have been able to legally ratify them until after the deal with Mussolini.

Your link doesn't say that they couldn't ratify treaties until after 1929. They could, and they did. (Why would anybody negotiate and sign a treaty with a party that couldn't ratify it?) Here, for example, is a Treaty between Latvia and the Holy See, concluded in 1922 and registered at the League of Nations (after ratification by both parties) in 1923: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/tr...r/1923/80.html. You won't have to look too far to find other examples. Treaties ratified between 1870 and 1920 are not so easy to find online (since there was no League of Nations registry, and most of them have by now lapsed or been replaced with more recent treaties) but there were many, and you can track them down in any good academic library.

Originally Posted by recedite

It's also noteworthy that the USA "played it by the book" and suspended diplomatic relations with the Holy See during that period, even if some other (more sympathetic) countries took a more "flexible" view of the meaning of the word sovereignty.

Rubbish. You're making this stuff up as you go along. The US suspended diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1867, at a time when it still controlled a fair chunk of territory in Central Italy. Congress cut off funding for the diplomatic mission, leading to its withdrawal. The reason was growing anti-Catholic sentiment in the US; it had nothing to do with territory. The US continued to maintain consular representation in Rome until 1870 - even in the 1860s, there were plenty of American tourists going to Rome - when the annexation of the Papal States by Italy made consular representation redundant. Consular relations were never resumed. Diplomatic relations were not resumed until 1984, when the congressional prohibition on funding it was repealed.

The US did not, in 1867, or in 1870, or at any time afterwards, deny or reject the sovereignty of the Holy See. Neither the withdrawal of the diplomatic mission in 1867, nor its return in 1984, had anything to do with the exent of the territory controlled by the Holy See.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Your link doesn't say that they couldn't ratify treaties until after 1929. They could, and they did. (Why would anybody negotiate and sign a treaty with a party that couldn't ratify it?) Here, for example, is a Treaty between Latvia and the Holy See, concluded in 1922 and registered at the League of Nations (after ratification by both parties) in 1923: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/tr...r/1923/80.html. You won't have to look too far to find other examples. Treaties ratified between 1870 and 1920 are not so easy to find online (since there was no League of Nations registry, and most of them have by now lapsed or been replaced with more recent treaties) but there were many, and you can track them down in any good academic library.

That wiki-page I linked to lists "proper" international treaties signed by the Holy See, and for some reason you'll see in the right hand column that they appeared to be unable to officially ratify any between 1869 and 1935. I don't think either of us is going to go scouring academic libraries, but if anyone can explain that I'd be interested to know why.

Your link refers to a Concordat with Latvia. A concordat being a special kind of contract or treaty or "understanding" between the RCC and a sovereign state. A concordat has similar attributes to a treaty between sovereign states alright, but the RCC does not have to be a sovereign to sign one.

The Latvian concordat is interesting as the agreement insists that the RCC be treated as a single legal entity; a"Corporate Body" with the same rights and liabilities as a civil corporate body - something that the RCC vehemently denied in recent times when various governments went looking to them for compensation for abuse victims. Instead they insist that there were rigid firewalls in place, and liability rested with an individual religious order or a diocese.

The US suspended diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1867, at a time when it still controlled a fair chunk of territory in Central Italy. Congress cut off funding for the diplomatic mission, leading to its withdrawal. The reason was growing anti-Catholic sentiment in the US; it had nothing to do with territory. The US continued to maintain consular representation in Rome until 1870 ...................... Diplomatic relations were not resumed until 1984,

OK to be exact, the diplomatic position of US Consul to the Vatican states was dissolved in I870 because at that point the Holy See lost its territory, and was no longer a sovereign state.

Why do you think the US refused to restore diplomatic relations with the Holy See after the RCC's little agreement to support Mussolini's fascists in return for a token territory in Rome? Was it because of "anti-catholic sentiment" from US Presidents (including JFK!!) Was it that the USA suffered from a lack of funds? Or was it simply that they didn't "buy" it.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

That wiki-page I linked to lists "proper" international treaties signed by the Holy See, and for some reason you'll see in the right hand column that they appeared to be unable to officially ratify any between 1869 and 1935. I don't think either of us is going to go scouring academic libraries, but if anyone can explain that I'd be interested to know why.

The wikipage you linked to only lists multilateral treaties to which the Holy See is a party; the great majority of treaties are bilateral, and this was even more so in the 1870-1929 period we are looking at. Furthermore, although it doesn’t say so, the wikipage only seems to list multilateral treaties which are still current. Finally, it seems that the list has been compiled primarily from the UN Treaty Series which, for obvious reasons, does not go back before 1945. Only a few treaties from before that date appear on the page.

Originally Posted by recedite

Your link refers to a Concordat with Latvia. A concordat being a special kind of contract or treaty or "understanding" between the RCC and a sovereign state. A concordat has similar attributes to a treaty between sovereign states alright, but the RCC does not have to be a sovereign to sign one.

A concordat is a treaty, just like a nuncio is an ambassador. It’s because concordats are treaties that they go through the full negotiation-signature-ratification process, and get registered with the treaty-registering authorities, and published (nowadays) in the UN Treaty Series, and are binding in exactly the way that any other treaty is binding, and so forth. If you can find a credible legal source which denies that a concordat is a treaty, now would be a good time to point to it.

Originally Posted by recedite

The Latvian concordat is interesting as the agreement insists that the RCC be treated as a single legal entity; a"Corporate Body" with the same rights and liabilities as a civil corporate body - something that the RCC vehemently denied in recent times when various governments went looking to them for compensation for abuse victims. Instead they insist that there were rigid firewalls in place, and liability rested with an individual religious order or a diocese.

If only those other states had signed a concordat similar to the Latvian concordat!

(But, actually, there’s no contradiction. At the time of the concordat, the whole of Latvia was included in a single diocese, so treating it as a single corporation for civil law purposes would have aligned the civil law with the existing canonical position. Catholicism is very much a minority religion in Latvia.)

Originally Posted by recedite

OK to be exact, the diplomatic position of US Consul to the Vatican states was dissolved in I870 because at that point the Holy See lost its territory, and was no longer a sovereign state.

No, no, no. Diplomatic representation ceased in 1867 because Congress cut off the funding. Consular representation ceased in 1870 because, once the Holy See ceased to control any territory, there was no consular work to be done. Sovereign recognition was never withdrawn.

Originally Posted by recedite

Why do you think the US refused to restore diplomatic relations with the Holy See after the RCC's little agreement to support Mussolini's fascists in return for a token territory in Rome? Was it because of "anti-catholic sentiment" from US Presidents (including JFK!!) Was it that the USA suffered from a lack of funds? Or was it simply that they didn't "buy" it.

No countries (apart from Italy) opened an embassy to the Holy See immediately after 1929, which I think makes my point that the possession of token territory by the Holy See wa not diplomatically significant, and does not account for the surprising number of resident embassies.

The anti-Catholicism which led the US to withdraw diplomatic representation in 1867 was still very much a feature of American life in 1929, and for some time afterwards; if you can find a reputable historian who says otherwise, name him. It was, for example, very much a live issue in the 1928 Presidential Election where the Democratic candidate, Al Smith, was a Catholic. (He lost.) Anti-Catholic sentiment didn’t really start to recede until after the Second World War but, even then, it took a while. Truman in fact proposed to restore diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1951, and Kennedy in 1961; both had to withdraw the proposal in the face of Congressional opposition. (Kennedy in particular, as a Catholic, was in a vulnerable position on this.)

[PDN]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Look, Europe is well-supplied with little statelets of perhaps questionable viability. It’s not just the Vatican and San Marino; there’s also Monaco and Andorra and Leichtenstein and Malta and arguably Luxembourg. They all have microscopic territories and populations, and mostly have little or no economy that could possibly interest anyone except their immediate neighbour.

But have they got a football team? All the States you mention there play in the Qualifiers for the European Championships - all except one.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by PDN

But have they got a football team? All the States you mention there play in the Qualifiers for the European Championships - all except one.

I think you're forgetting the All-Priests Over-75s Five-A-Side Indoor Challenge Football Team, with Fr. Romeo Sensini!

(Monaco has a national football team and, amazingly enough, so does the Vatican. The latter consists entirely of members of the Swiss Guards, all other citizens of the Vatican being either too old or too fat or both. Neither nation plays in the European Championships, and neither is a member of FIFA. From memory, they mostly play one another. Monaco usually wins, having a (slightly) larger pool of talent to draw on.

The Vatican also has a domestic football competition, the Clericus Cup in which teams from the various Roman Colleges play a league. The 2011 cup was won by the Pontifical Gregorian University, which beat the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas 3-1 in a thrilling final. The Irish College plays in a united team with the English, the Scots and the Beda, and sad to say they finish nowhere.)