tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post7994540150692824862..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Defending the Papal StatesMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-37942333852746015632012-04-10T21:56:30.876-05:002012-04-10T21:56:30.876-05:00A point that makes a difference with me was those ...A point that makes a difference with me was those states all had the option, and the chance, to cooperate in unification and survive but chose not to. The Papal States is the most "difficult" (and why it was the last) because there is no getting around what it was -an invasion and occupation. I do think (as many did at the time throughout Italy) that if the Savoy army had not come in the eventual outcome would have been a republic -which was the last thing most sane people wanted. <br /><br />There was nothing "wrong" with the Papal States, as I said above, but when you look at history the Papal States were rather 'out of time' and though (I stress) there was nothing wrong with the Papal States, having them was not always good for "the Church" as a whole. The Papal domain was never large enough to be truly independent, it always required another foreign power or powers to defend them and this meant that her larger neighbors (usually Austria and France) had to be constantly played off against each other so that neither could threaten Rome. This went on to the very end and was partly to blame for the Renaissance Popes not taking more decisive action against the birth of Lutheranism. Because the Popes had to play the game of political chess they sometimes had to take actions with were to the detriment of the Church as a whole or in certain countries in order to safeguard their own independence in Rome -something which was vital and still is today.<br /><br />It doesn't bother me though. Since 1929 both sides made peace and if the Papacy is content I see no reason to make a fuss. However, I do wish the Pope would have been a little more realistic and accepted the King's first offer for control of all of Rome on the right bank of the Tiber or within the Leonine Walls. Had that been done so many Vatican offices and embassies would not have to reside on what is technically foreign soil.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-42822813178290306712012-04-10T18:55:41.627-05:002012-04-10T18:55:41.627-05:00The Papal States is one of those reasons why I hav...The Papal States is one of those reasons why I have mixed feelings about Italian unification. Of course, it was great having all of Italy united under the Savoy crown, and it was a remarkable and glorious achievement, but on the other hand, having to topple all the smaller kingdoms and duchies to bring it about made it sort of bittersweet. <br /><br />The Papal States presents a bigger issue than others - you can't be a good Catholic without thinking that it was more than a little sacrilegious to overthrow the Pope's government and take all of his land - that's one ethical conflict that didn't exist with the Two Sicilies.<br /><br />I guess it had to happen, but it would have been nice if it could have happened another way, whatever that would be.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08368547834849724343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-20442750071923457282012-04-09T14:50:01.960-05:002012-04-09T14:50:01.960-05:00The complaints against the Papal States are not re...The complaints against the Papal States are not really about the specific episode criticised. People have decided in advance that the Papal States were Evil, and then set about looking for excuses to justify this outrage. Atheists do this a lot with the Bible or Christianity. EG, they will criticise Christians for killing pagan Cultures only to quote Gibbons and complain that Christian pacifism made the Roman Empire unable to defend itself thus causing it to fall. The complaints contradict each other but, they both take shots at the same target so are valid. The same actually exists in a Republic. Look at Bush, literally everything he ever did was criticised. The same can b said of Obama. While I am not saying that there can be no legitimate criticism o these things, it does seem apparent that the Criticism is rooted in an attempt at justifying animosity rather than being its actual source. People want to prove how oppressive and Evil theocracy is because we are conditioned to think its the worst Governmental form ever, even worse than Monarchy. We imagine Iran, or Osama Ben Laden as our picture of what Theocracy means and pretty well just try to make the reality fit the image. People want their Paradigms to be true so try to fit what they se in the real world around it, rather than question their assumptions about the world.<br /><br />I agree that, while not a traditional hereditary Monarchy, the papal States were a monarchy. I personally don’t mind an appointed figure as a head of State, in some instances. I also don’t think claims to the contrary hold up, given that the Pope was listed as a King in Europe by all other Governments.<br /><br />I also don’t think the Papal States were that bad, and in fact they were superior to the horrific Communist experiment, Revolutionary France, or I’d even say than Modern Italy. You didn’t have the Governmental breakdowns or the Papal States going completely bankrupt, did you?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.com