• palordrolap@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    He’s the leader of a “country” that exists in the hearts and minds of every Catholic as well as the Vatican proper. There are bound to be people who love him and those who hate him within that “country” the same way it works with any country and as such, his office has influence.

    Is it any more than if he was merely the leader of another city state? I’d say so.

    Tell me, without looking it up, who the leader of San Marino, the other Italian city state, is. (And if you can, how many other people, especially outside Italy, could do the same?)

          • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            The Patti Lateranensi are bad enough that you don’t need to spread misinformation about them.

            The Vatican “state” has existed since the middle ages, and for a period of time was quite big

            • nfh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              The Papal states, which was the middle ages version of Vatican City, didn’t exist for a period of almost 60 years, when modern Vatican City was first recognized as a nation, in the Lateran treaty.

              At some level, it’s a question of whether you view Vatican City as a new successor state, or a continuation of the former Papal states. The treaty framed it as a new state, which is at least an interesting historical fact.

            • TachyonTele@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yup. At one point the Vatican was most of Italy. I don’t think Mussolini was around then, or he was very old during the war.