|
Post by matt on Feb 26, 2013 23:48:50 GMT 10
Considering the criminal enterprise the Roman Catholic Cult is, should Italy annex Vatican City?
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Feb 27, 2013 0:06:44 GMT 10
Considering the criminal enterprise the Roman Catholic Cult is, should Italy annex Vatican City? yes and return ALL THE GOLD to the poor from whom they stole it!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2013 8:12:01 GMT 10
During the unification of Italy in the mid-19th Century, the Papal States resisted incorporation into the new nation, even as all the other Italian countries joined it; Camillo Cavour's dream of proclaiming the Kingdom of Italy from the steps of St. Peter's Basilica did not come to pass. The nascent Kingdom of Italy invaded and occupied Romagna (the eastern portion of the Papal States) in 1860, leaving only Latium in the Pope's domains. Latium, including Rome itself, was occupied and annexed in 1870. For the following sixty years, relations between the Papacy and the Italian government were hostile, and the status of the Pope became known as the "Roman Question". Negotiations for the settlement of the Roman Question began in 1926 between the government of Italy and the Holy See, and culminated in the agreements of the Lateran Pacts, signed—the Treaty says—for King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy by Benito Mussolini, Prime Minister and Head of Government, and for Pope Pius XI by Pietro Gasparri, Cardinal Secretary of State, on February 11, 1929. The agreements were signed in the Lateran Palace, hence the name by which they are known.
The agreements included a political treaty which created the state of the Vatican City and guaranteed full and independent sovereignty to the Holy See. The Pope was pledged to perpetual neutrality in international relations and to abstention from mediation in a controversy unless specifically requested by all parties. In the first article of the treaty, Italy reaffirmed the principle established in the 4 March 1848 Statute of the Kingdom of Italy, that "the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion is the only religion of the State". The attached financial agreement was accepted as settlement of all the claims of the Holy See against Italy arising from the loss of temporal power in 1870.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_TreatyThe Lateran Treaty that establishes the Vatican as sovereign territory is internationally recognised and is very useful as a diplomatic listening post. There's a lot of "back channel" diplomatic horse trading that goes on there which means that groups and nations who find it difficult to impossible to be seen together (such as Palestinians and Israelis) find the Vatican a useful place to engage in unofficial "back channel" negotiations. It's a nice little brain explosion on your part, Matt, and it gives Caskur an excuse for one of her bouts of grandstanding nonsense, but I very much doubt that the "Reppublica Italiana" is going to move in and annex the Vatican to incorporate it into the Italian Republic any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 27, 2013 11:41:52 GMT 10
Switzerland!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2013 11:47:22 GMT 10
Yes ... Switzerland is a small country north of the Alps which encompasses one of the great linguistic fault lines of Europe. What's the problem, Matt? Need geography lesson?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 27, 2013 12:19:16 GMT 10
Yes ... Switzerland is a small country north of the Alps which encompasses one of the great linguistic fault lines of Europe. What's the problem, Matt? Need geography lesson? It is a neutral nation, which means there is no need for the Vatican.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2013 12:21:10 GMT 10
Matt, you're being opaque.
That's adult talk for "you're not making yourself clear"
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 27, 2013 13:55:38 GMT 10
You talk about the Vatican as if it is unique in terms of what it can do, a special corner of the earth where enemies can secretly do deals, secretly talk, hush hush. That is false, nothing would change if we got rid of it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 14:03:40 GMT 10
Yes ... Switzerland is a small country north of the Alps which encompasses one of the great linguistic fault lines of Europe. What's the problem, Matt? Need geography lesson? It is a neutral nation, which means there is no need for the Vatican. Matt, have you seen pictures of the guys in multicolored striped costumes with puffy pantaloons standing guard around the Vatican? They are members of the elite Swiss Guard. Ironic, hey?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 27, 2013 16:46:44 GMT 10
It is a neutral nation, which means there is no need for the Vatican. Matt, have you seen pictures of the guys in multicolored striped costumes with puffy pantaloons standing guard around the Vatican? They are members of the elite Swiss Guard. Ironic, hey? I know exactly what they are.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2013 16:58:24 GMT 10
Grim, that's the Swiss canton of Fribourg. Actually half of Fribourg is French-speaking and the other half is German-speaking where they call it Freiburg. I've walked over the bridge the crosses the river that marks the language border, from the French-speaking side to the German-speaking side. It's a Catholic canton and the Vatican guards are drawn from there. It's true that they wear these colourful costumes - I'm sure they'd be a big hit at the Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras! - but they also have full Swiss Army training. A terrorist trying to get into the Vatican would get short shrift from those guys. But most of Switzerland is Protestant. In fact if you go back before the days of modern money laundering and numbered bank accounts, the main gift of Switzerland to the world is Protestantism. John Calvin performed his ministry there. So did Zwingli. In fact even Matt's Happy Clapper brand of evangelical "God Inc" Christianity-for-winners (losers need not apply) stands in a direct line of descent from the ministry of john Calvin, some 500 years ago in Switzerland. It's the last place I'd think of as a HQ for world Catholicism. Something Matt said in his previous post intrigues me: nothing would change if we got rid of it!. Notice how Matt regularly uses the inclusive "we"? As if the role of the Vatican in the modern world is down to "us". Matt. lemme tellya sonny boy, whatever happens to the Vatican will not be down to "us". "We" will be the last ones consulted. "We" might hear about it on the TV news. As for "back channel" diplomacy, Matt you talk as if there are official places where back channel diplomacy can take place and it shouldn't take place elsewhere. You just don't get it, do ya! The reason that they call it "back channel" diplomacy is that it's unofficial, on the quiet, no news cameras, no TV interviews, no media releases and loads and loads of in-built deniability. Why, if it leaks that X has been talking to Y then they can deny that the talks ever took place. So it follows, Matt, young-feller-me-lad who appears to be wet behind the ears and has to have everything explained to him because he's too dumb and ignorant to know better, that there is no set venue where there's a sign that says "Conduct back channel diplomacy HERE" with an arrow pointing the way. Lemme give you an example: some companies are busy in negotiations to wrap up a deal. They reach an impasse and it looks as if the deal is going to fall through. Suddenly, at the 11th hour, a proposal is put on the table and the other side agrees. What happened? Who knows? A bit of back channel stuff perhaps? Maybe the CEO of company X went for a leak in the men's loo and came across the CEO of company Y who was doing the same thing. As they stood there pointing Percy at the Porcelain, maybe they sorted something out and it only took a couple of minutes because there wasn't anyone taking minutes and there were no witnesses. Or in a courtroom where there's a civil case of X suing Y for slander or some such and it's settled out-of-court. So they come to an agreement informally on the golf course and present it to the court which ismore than happy to give it its blessing. Back channel negotiations can take place anywhere. Under the terms of the Lateran Treaty that set up the Vatican, the Vatican is a sovereign state known as the Holy See which is forever committed to neutrality in world affairs. Whether you like it or not, Matt, that makes it a superb diplomatic listening post and useful for back channel diplomacy. Australia would be stupid not to have an Ambassador accredited to the Holy See, and there's nothing "we" can do about it. Whatever the nature of the Australian Government - whether it's the government of the red-headed atheist devil woman or of the monkey-eared member of the global paedophile conspiracy - Australia is going to go on accrediting an Ambassador to the Holy See. And you can eat your heart out.
|
|