tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post3481194797550757651..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: The Pope, the King and the Lateran TreatyMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-12439004336036229142012-06-10T23:34:52.591-05:002012-06-10T23:34:52.591-05:00Could it just be possible that the Catholic world ...Could it just be possible that the Catholic world would have gained more sympathy for the Pope simply because he was no longer having to take sides against any of them, because he had been the victim of aggression no matter what happened later or because he wasn't having to throw people in jail or have anyone beheaded anymore? I'd say it would at least be possible. It's not like Catholics were unsympathetic to the Pope before but it was rather difficult when you were a German and the Pope was supporting the French in cutting you down or vice versa.<br /><br />I did mention the point about the Guarantees being based on the goodwill of the Parliament -I never said otherwise. However, since the King was willing to offer what he did, if the Pope had at least negotiated with him I think it's at least possible he could have achieved what the Lateran Treaty did over an even greater territory. And as for taking an annual "allowance" from the government, I'm not sure why you would mention that as a negative. That's what happens now and has since the Lateran Accords. All Italians pay a tax to the Catholic Church, that's the law. If it would have weakened public sympathy for the Pope then it would be doing the same now. The only difference is that now, under the republic, all religions now get a piece of the pie instead of just the Catholic Church.<br /><br />Another point no one seems to ever make is that, as shaky as the "Guarantees" of the Kingdom of Italy might have seemed, there's not that much difference between that and the Lateran Treaty. A law is a law, a piece of paper is a piece of paper. If countries in 1870 were not willing to wage war to give the Pope back his land and subjects, could anyone imagine a country today doing that if the Italian government just decided to take over the Vatican? Because, promises aside, the Vatican cannot be truly independent. They require the goodwill of the Italian government to maintain themselves just as they did before the Lateran Treaties when the King could have, at any time, occupied the Vatican or simply cut it off from the outside world until they ran out of food and came out with their hands up. <br /><br />There were many anti-clericals in the government who urged such action because (they could argue to the world) the Pope would not negotiate and had already done the worst he could do to them. They basically said, 'He's refused to recognize our existence, refuses to deal with us and has already excommunicated everyone three times, so why not just end the problem ourselves?' And of course Italy and the Vatican were at odds during World War I, given what offers the Germans were making it is not surprising. The Papal court was overtly pro-Austrian and even the Pope declaring himself impartial was hard for people to believe since, up to that time, the Pope had never been impartial in a major war, the Pope had always taken a side and sometimes even contributed troops and warships.<br /><br />As soon as Bl. Pius IX died, each successive Pontiff found it necessary to roll things back from the initial staunch opposition (to shun the nation of Italy). Is it not possible they could have accomplished even more if they had just done that at the outset? The Papal States were gone, they were not coming back and it seems to me, at least possible, that it would have been much more beneficial to have come to terms with this sooner so that the Catholic majority of Italy could have been mobilized sooner to stop the less savory elements that came to dominate the political scene.<br /><br />And, again, like it or not, at the end of the day, the Pope still resides in the Vatican only because the government allows him to. Especially in today's political climate, I cannot imagine the rest of the world or the EU getting all that upset if Mario Monti decided to take a swing at the Pope. There would be plenty of letters of condemnation and protest, but I sadly cannot picture any government today actually doing anything about it.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-30932400533671016012012-06-10T19:12:48.781-05:002012-06-10T19:12:48.781-05:00In retrospect, Pius IX and his successor's dec...In retrospect, Pius IX and his successor's decision to be "Prisoners of the Vatican" was the right move. It earned them the united sympathy of the Catholic world (something I don't think they would have had had they taken an annual "allowance" from the Italian govt.as the Law of Guarantees called for) and if they had accepted the Law of Guarantees (which the Popes always argued was a unilateral one-sided law created by the Italian Govt and could be un-created by a future Italian Govt. - which was true) there would have been no true independence for the Pope nor no Vatican City State and no Lateran Treaty that sealed that not only into law but into the Italian Constitution (even the Republican one following the WWII), something going by the "good faith" of Italian politicans the Popes could not rely on. For instance, as you put it, the Popes were granted the "use of" the Vatican, St. Peter's, Castel Gandolfo, the Lateran but now ownership over them (which is downright insulting especially when you consider they had confiscated the Pope's personal property, the Quirinale, as home to the Savoy Kings). Many people mistakenly believed that the "extra-terroritory" clause in the Law of Guarantees meant these properties of the popes - but they were wrong. If you read old issues from the NY Times dating to WWI (when the Italian Govt. was actively trying to suppress any Papal involvement in peace talks citing the Pope had no authority) officials and surrogates of the Italian Govt (especially under PM Crispi) made the claim that the Pope only lived in his domains under the sufferance of the Italian Govt. which actually OWNED the Vatican and the Lateran. Even the Law of Guarantees called for a future date when the "Kingdom of Italy" might take over the Vatican Museums which should have been ominous for anyone thinking the Laws actually granted the Pope any rights. The decision by the Popes to never the leave the Vatican was actually the right one IMO. Any other decision (even openly accepting the Laws of Guarantees) would have meant the Popes were OK with the Italian Govt. unilaterally deciding what the Pope could and could not do and what he owned and did not own.Jack B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10535561070313996833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-26948183417429508792012-06-10T17:44:48.744-05:002012-06-10T17:44:48.744-05:00Given all the disadvantages they are forced to lab...Given all the disadvantages they are forced to labor under I have been nothing but impressed by the ardent Italian monarchist community who continue to carry on and keep making the argument for a restoration.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-5876069005057932472012-06-09T10:09:15.717-05:002012-06-09T10:09:15.717-05:00There are many democratic, republican, monarchist,...There are many democratic, republican, monarchist, independent, et al movements throughout Italy. Italians are very individualistic, of course, and there is a long history behind that attitude. There was (is) only one form of government that united (will unite) all Italians--monarchy. Yes, there were many political, economical, and social differences in opinion (still true today) during the Kingdom of Italy, but the monarchy united us all because brotherhood and common cause trump all else. I yearn for the return of the Kingdom of Italy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-72494515204740823052012-06-08T21:17:49.192-05:002012-06-08T21:17:49.192-05:00It could only do Italy good to shed the Berlusconi...It could only do Italy good to shed the Berlusconi's of their republican government, and return to the crown. A modern day Kingdom of Italy would present an alternative to those radicals (neo fascists) who are growing in strength. Especially in the North of Italy. I've heard there are also strong Sardinian, Venetian and Sicilian independence movements. A king for Italy would unite them all...one should hope!The Last Churchillianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09778215818629928163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-84058174939454867932012-06-08T07:44:21.013-05:002012-06-08T07:44:21.013-05:00As an Italian, I pray that my fellow Italians see ...As an Italian, I pray that my fellow Italians see the light, i.e., monarchy is the answer to solve the problems. Since the fall of the Italian monarchy, Italy has been a political, an economical, and a social basket-case. While most Italians are democrats and republicans, there remains a strong monarchist presence, especially in southern Italy (mostly the small, conservative villages and towns). In addition, there are monarchist organizations educating and advocating the return of monarchy in Italy. So, I am hopeful my fellow Italians will wake from their democrat and republican cesspool. In order to revive the Kingdom of Italy successfully, the culture and attitude must be changed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com