Brazilian Papal States

[Eurofed]

Not in the 19th century it wouldn't; the French never considered it IOTL and were rather touchy about the "national territory" - neither royal nor republican juridical tradition considered it possible for the french head of state to alienate land short of a defeat at war. Andorra fulfilled all the problems and on top of it was, with Liechtenstein, one of the OTL proposals before the italian government voted the Law of Guarantees.

For Papal Avignon, Bourbon France might be willing to make a special exception, especially if the land ceded is limited. As it has been remarked, it may be at little as a few city blocks.

As for Boulangism, for all its "populist appeal" it never managed to get more than 10% of the popular vote: a Boulangist coup would have ended messily and with Boulanger's fall: the man was no Franco.

The Royalists had a majority in the 1871 National Assembly. If the Pope persuades Henry to accept the tricolor as a compromise of convenience (and he was one of the few men in the world Henry whose authority Henry would heed) "to make France the sword and shield of the True Church", he
would get the throne. Boulanger is just an example of how a late 19th century far-right Frewnch regime might expand its consensus base by marrying reactionary Catholicism with proto-fascist jingoism and militarism.

I won't say that Andorra would not be a decent alternative. It would be. But in comparison to Avignon (or Santiago de Compostela), it would lack prestige and tradition, and hence be a second-rate option for the Papacy.

The Balearics and Corsica would be even poorer choices, no prestige, the problem of alienating national territory, and Corsica was kinda unruly and too close to Italy.

 

[archaeogeek]

For Papal Avignon, Bourbon France might be willing to make a special exception, especially if the land ceded is limited. As it has been remarked, it may be at little as a few city blocks.



The Royalists had a majority in the 1871 National Assembly. If the Pope persuades Henry to accept the tricolor as a compromise of convenience (and he was one of the few men in the world Henry whose authority Henry would heed) "to make France the sword and shield of the True Church", he
would get the throne. Boulanger is just an example of how a late 19th century far-right Frewnch regime might expand its consensus base by marrying reactionary Catholicism with proto-fascist jingoism and militarism.

I won't say that Andorra would not be a decent alternative. It would be. But in comparison to Avignon (or Santiago de Compostela), it would lack prestige and tradition, and hence be a second-rate option for the Papacy.

The Balearics and Corsica would be even poorer choices, no prestige, the problem of alienating national territory, and Corsica was kinda unruly and too close to Italy.

Great, and cause a constitutional crisis: best way to launch a new regime.

Even as "sword and shield of the True Church", the french kings had long sought to claim it, and the land didn't come from France, but from Provence, when it was still an imperial principality. Henri V failed for a flag, he's not going to be handing out sovereign land to the pope unless it's not part of France.

 

[Eurofed]

Andorra, however, as archaeogeek says, is a much better option. If the french have no problems, the spanish co-prince is the Bishop of Urgell, so it makes the things easier. On the other hand, it's too close to the Carlist strongholds in Catalonia, so it could end badly for the Pope. Once the Third Carlist War starts, the voices relating him with the rebellion, rightly or wrongly, would be numerous.

Unless he's under the military protection of Bourbon France, and Henry and the Pope are supporting the Carlists together.

On the other hand, regarding the reactionnary France, even if the ASB's manage to get a stable reactionary France,

It is never going to have full stability, but reactionary Catholicism and militarist jingoism can provide a sufficiently stable power base for a while, since after the Commune, France was swinging to the right.

imposing the Carlist candidate in Madrid would mean probably something from a very violent reaction from the liberal and republican sides to a Cantonal Revolution on steroids and a lot of trouble even to OTL standards.

The Carlists were not as weak as you imply, and with overt sponsorship by the Pope and strong support from France, they can grow much stronger.

 

[Antipater]

There are lots of places the Pope COULD go if he so chose - but anywhere would put him under the thumb of the rulers of wherever he went. If he goes to France he will be (at least perceived as) a French puppet, etc.

This just INVITES a second schism, with someone else setting up an anti-pope - especially if that someone controls Rome.

The whole strength of the Papacy is as successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome, and if they aren't in Rome, that's going to heavily affect their power. Oh, not immediately perhaps, but over time.

I think a late 19th century anti-Pope is exceedingly unlikely. Anti-Popes could only exist under a political system in which lay investiture (the appointment of bishops and other high ranking "Princes of the Church" by non-priests) is at least tolerated by most Catholics. This was barely the case in the 14th century, by the 19th century it was considered laughable. Besides, even if the Italians appointed themselves their own brand new Pope, what would be the advantage? Not even sincere Italian Catholics would really buy into this new Pope; the most fervent Italian Nationalists tended to be agnostic at best. No one outside of Italy would acknowledge a Pope appointed by Victor Emmanuel II and a few handpicked, certainly excommunicated cardinals. It would just antagonize other Catholic nations and laypeople from the Italian state, in return for helping 1/20 Italian catholics sleep at night.

 

[Eurofed]

I think a late 19th century anti-Pope is exceedingly unlikely. Anti-Popes could only exist under a political system in which lay investiture (the appointment of bishops and other high ranking "Princes of the Church" by non-priests) is at least tolerated by most Catholics. This was barely the case in the 14th century, by the 19th century it was considered laughable. Besides, even if the Italians appointed themselves their own brand new Pope, what would be the advantage? Not even sincere Italian Catholics would really buy into this new Pope; the most fervent Italian Nationalists tended to be agnostic at best. No one outside of Italy would acknowledge a Pope appointed by Victor Emmanuel II and a few handpicked, certainly excommunicated cardinals. It would just antagonize other Catholic nations and laypeople from the Italian state, in return for helping 1/20 Italian catholics sleep at night.

Yep, but as I said, if the PoD is greater antagonism between Napoleonic France and the Pope on one side, and the Prussian/German-Italian alliance on the other, you may have Bismarck's Kulturkampf and liberal Italy's anticlerical policy develop into support for the OTL Old Catholic schism, which developed in response to First Vatican Council and the proclamation of Papal Infallibility. If the Council takes place in the context of a Franco-German-Italian war, German and Italian patriotic nationalism and government support may easily latch on to the Old Catholic movement and give it the critical mass to seize the support of the vast majority of catholics in Germany and Italy.

There would not be an "antipope" per se, since the Old Catholics ditched the Papacy and quickly evolved towards an Anglican-like organization, but a "Second Western Schism" would unfold between Old Catholic Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Netherlands (the latter two places were OTL OC strongholds, and ITTL would go OC all the way) and Papal-Catholic France, Iberia, Poland, and Ireland. Austria would likely be torn, Liberals and German nationalists supporting the OC and conservaties and Habsburg loyalists the PC. Britain and the USA would strongly sympathize with the liberal-leaning OC, and pretty quickly a merging of OC and the Anglican/Episcopal Church would be achieved (as IOTL).

 

[Uriel]

I think the Pope is unlikely to leave Europe before 1900.
The Church was still pretty Eurocentric until the 1950s and Europe was until the 1th WW economicaly and politcaly more important than the Americas.
The Pope going to America would have (due to slow communications) severly reduced his ability to control the church and meddle in international politics.

While many conservative nations would be happy to grant asylum to the pope and give him an extraterritorial residence I find it hard to imagine that they would give up a larger part of their core lands to create a new papal state.
I could think of the following possibilities...

...in Europe:

-Andorra (the only realistic possibility, maybe slightly enlarged by French/Spanish grants)

-The Baleares (maybe in exchange for giving up church property in Spain)

-Krakow and surounding areas (maybe as a Saarland like Austrian protectorate, Austria might agree as it would enable them to sharpen their catholic profile and give Cisleithania an narrow german majority, future development and relations with polish nationalist would be interesting)

...outside Europe (as said above IMO not really an option before 1900)

-Pope is invited to become head of state of Ecuador, Venezuela or one of the Central American Republics

-A cesation of colonial territory by an european power (Goa, Puerto Rico, the/parts of the Phillipins, French Guyana; one the one hand that would be easier for the Europeans than to give up core territories on the other hand I can hear protestants and liberals gloating about the pope departing to a "prison colony")

-Napoleon III chooses a two in one solution: he stops protecing Latium and instead installs the Pope as head of state of Mexico

-"The Brazilia Option": A new Papal State is create on more or less uninhabitated land in Brazil (or other catholic country with lots of "empty" space, maybe even parts of a Portugese colony). This is payed for by donations from cathlicas all over the world. Only possible after ~ 1920 but then IMO the most likely option (although only for an city sized state)

... either in Europe or South America:

-Larger powers (France, Spain, AH, maybe Germany and USA to appease their catholic minorities) take the "why should we give territory to the pope lets just screw a smaller country" option and force Belgium (catholic. weak, a young nation then) or one of the South American nations to cede land for a Papal State. Not so ASB given the mindset of the 19th century, but unlikely as france was very weak when the Papavy fell and the UK is likely to block the plan.

 

[kasumigenx]

You could have one of the CSA States turn into a Papal state but the question is how and the POD.

 

[archaeogeek]

You could have one of the CSA States turn into a Papal state but the question is how and the POD.

Only Louisiana, Texas and Florida had significant catholic populations at the time (and West FL would likely revolt)

 

[RyuDrago]

I think an exiled Pope could escape from Europe to America after 1900 in WWII, when the Germans invaded France and Italy join the Axis; if was choose as haven Spain i don't think the Pope decided to escape but he gave full support to Franco in the civil war; but not knowning if later Spain joined or not into the Axis, the Pope could decide to search an American new haven.

According to this thread, Fascism will try to reach an agreement with the Church or Mussolini decided to spread anti-clericalism in Italy?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Yep, but as I said, if the PoD is greater antagonism between Napoleonic France and the Pope on one side, and the Prussian/German-Italian alliance on the other, you may have Bismarck's Kulturkampf and liberal Italy's anticlerical policy develop into support for the OTL Old Catholic schism, which developed in response to First Vatican Council and the proclamation of Papal Infallibility. If the Council takes place in the context of a Franco-German-Italian war, German and Italian patriotic nationalism and government support may easily latch on to the Old Catholic movement and give it the critical mass to seize the support of the vast majority of catholics in Germany and Italy.

There would not be an "antipope" per se, since the Old Catholics ditched the Papacy and quickly evolved towards an Anglican-like organization, but a "Second Western Schism" would unfold between Old Catholic Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Netherlands (the latter two places were OTL OC strongholds, and ITTL would go OC all the way) and Papal-Catholic France, Iberia, Poland, and Ireland. Austria would likely be torn, Liberals and German nationalists supporting the OC and conservaties and Habsburg loyalists the PC. Britain and the USA would strongly sympathize with the liberal-leaning OC, and pretty quickly a merging of OC and the Anglican/Episcopal Church would be achieved (as IOTL).

Basically - except that if the *Old Catholics have that much more influence and population, they might well claim to be 'True Catholics' and elect their own pope.

 

[LordKalvan]

Yep, but as I said, if the PoD is greater antagonism between Napoleonic France and the Pope on one side, and the Prussian/German-Italian alliance on the other, you may have Bismarck's Kulturkampf and liberal Italy's anticlerical policy develop into support for the OTL Old Catholic schism, which developed in response to First Vatican Council and the proclamation of Papal Infallibility. If the Council takes place in the context of a Franco-German-Italian war, German and Italian patriotic nationalism and government support may easily latch on to the Old Catholic movement and give it the critical mass to seize the support of the vast majority of catholics in Germany and Italy.

There would not be an "antipope" per se, since the Old Catholics ditched the Papacy and quickly evolved towards an Anglican-like organization, but a "Second Western Schism" would unfold between Old Catholic Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Netherlands (the latter two places were OTL OC strongholds, and ITTL would go OC all the way) and Papal-Catholic France, Iberia, Poland, and Ireland. Austria would likely be torn, Liberals and German nationalists supporting the OC and conservaties and Habsburg loyalists the PC. Britain and the USA would strongly sympathize with the liberal-leaning OC, and pretty quickly a merging of OC and the Anglican/Episcopal Church would be achieved (as IOTL).

Basically - except that if the *Old Catholics have that much more influence and population, they might well claim to be 'True Catholics' and elect their own pope.

I'm strongly with Eurofed on this one, in particular if the pope-in-exile starts with excommunications right and left and a strong condemnation of modernism (say a Non Expedit on steroids). It makes much more sense to have national churches (which would probably be more PC in the late 19th century mindset), linked together by regular councils to deal with issues of dogma. It would also be more attractive to the state sponsors of the OCs (I'm thinking mainly of Germany and Italy), since it would neatly deal with the issue of the double allegiance of the bishops, and would certainly be well received in UK and USA.

In terms of location, I believe that Andorra would make sense, since it would be in a central location for two of the main papal backers (France and Spain).
The alternative might be somewhere in Austria (Salzburg? Krakow? Trento? they had both been episcopal lordships prior to the abolition of the HRE). However Austria is quite likely to be divided on the papal issue, Salzburg would be too close to Bavaria for Bismarck to be happy while a pope in Krakow would give him and the Russians kittens. Obviously a pope relocated to Trento, on the Italian border, would be unacceptable to Italy. The more I consider it, the more I get convinced that Andora would be a suitable fig leaf for the continued temporal power of the pope, while a few palaces in France and Span might be tossed in to sweeten the deal and provide the comfort that a town in the Pyrenees might fail to provide.

 

[RyuDrago]

I don't think the Italians could even think to promove a schism or put an antipope in Rome... it's a too radical move in a country where almost all, even if they proclaimed as communist, in heart were also catholics.

 

[Falecius]

I don't think the Italians could even think to promove a schism or put an antipope in Rome... it's a too radical move in a country where almost all, even if they proclaimed as communist, in heart were also catholics.

Communist?????

 

[Uriel]

If the Council takes place in the context of a Franco-German-Italian war, German and Italian patriotic nationalism and government support may easily latch on to the Old Catholic movement and give it the critical mass to seize the support of the vast majority of catholics in Germany and Italy.

There would not be an "antipope" per se, since the Old Catholics ditched the Papacy and quickly evolved towards an Anglican-like organization

I think you are grossly overestimating goverments ability to set up new churches (especially at that time).

The british monarchs had to kill an awfull lot of people to make anglicanism work (and had the advantage that the english catholic church at that time was incredible corrupt and weak by 19th century standarts).

Bismarcks Kulturkampf failed miserably as did attemps to set up national catholic churches in France (during the revolution) Mexico and Czechia (in the 20th century).
The french and mexicans actually killed an awfull lot of people and still failed!

German nationalism was, at that time still kept somewhat in check by anti prussian regionalism. In Bavaria "Prussian" is still an insult and them becoming old catholics because goverment says so is plain ridiculous.

As for liberals, the problem with them is that they are normally not really interested in religion. Peolpe so unhappy with / distrustfull of catholic traditions that they denounce the pope do not normally become Anglicans/Old Catholics they just become agnostics.

 

[RyuDrago]

Communist?????

Ups! I thought too forward regarding the post WWII italian situation... because even if Italy had the most great western communist party over 90% of overall population said they were catholic. Pratically i made the last statement over a more recent situation, only because i don't think in 150 years things were changed so much...

In late 19th century i did say socialist or liberals, but the real anticlericals in Italy were (but also now) very few...

 

[kasumigenx]

Only Louisiana, Texas and Florida had significant catholic populations at the time (and West FL would likely revolt)

He can carve a new country from CSA if he got support from the political elite..

 

[Frentanus]

Italy whitout papacy, what a dream

 

[archaeogeek]

He can carve a new country from CSA if he got support from the political elite..

Why does this board section look more often like someone is playing EU3 or Victoria than paying attention to history in the slightest

 

[Simon]

When we're talking about Andorra are we saying that he gets a small part of it or that he takes over the whole of the principality? The latter shouldn't be too hard I would think if you allow for an early enough point of departure. And whilst Avignon might have the history and prestige behind it, a palace and the surrounding neighbourhood versus a country of 180 odd square miles I think Andorra wins. Hell you can build yourself a new Papal palace.

Apparently the French revolutionary government renounced their status as one of the co-rulers only for it to be restored by Napoleon 15 or so years later at the Andorrans petition. Simply have him either not hear or not respond to the request making the Bishop of Urgel the sole Prince, and then after the wars it falls through the cracks so the French monarch doesn't regain their status of co-Prince. When the Pope gets run out of town you've got a state already run by one of your bishops just waiting for you, either to cede a large plot of land for a new Papal States or through some shenanigans try and combine the positions of Pope and Prince of Andorra and take over the whole lot as absolute monarch.

 

[archaeogeek]

When we're talking about Andorra are we saying that he gets a small part of it or that he takes over the whole of the principality? The latter shouldn't be too hard I would think if you allow for an early enough point of departure. And whilst Avignon might have the history and prestige behind it, a palace and the surrounding neighbourhood versus a country of 180 odd square miles I think Andorra wins. Hell you can build yourself a new Papal palace.

Apparently the French revolutionary government renounced their status as one of the co-rulers only for it to be restored by Napoleon 15 or so years later at the Andorrans petition. Simply have him either not hear or not respond to the request making the Bishop of Urgel the sole Prince, and then after the wars it falls through the cracks so the French monarch doesn't regain their status of co-Prince. When the Pope gets run out of town you've got a state already run by one of your bishops just waiting for you, either to cede a large plot of land for a new Papal States or through some shenanigans try and combine the positions of Pope and Prince of Andorra and take over the whole lot as absolute monarch.

Yeah, it came about as part of a hilarious bit of forgetfulness; Andorra would have been part of Ariège, in theory, but when deputies came the deputies of Andorra were turned around by whoever was receiving them because they somehow thought it was either part of spanish Catalonia or already covered by the county of Foix.
Or had no idea what the hell an Andorra was for all we know