Modern Papal States

I know the actual PoD would be before 1900, but focus of the discussion should be how such a state would affect modern world politics, and the expanded role of the Catholic Church in the modern world with the institution actually controlling the equivalent of a mid-sized country.

So, how would the Papal States (or any sucessor, with the Pope as the Head of state, that might encompass a larger share of the penninsula) work in the modern world?
 
I know the actual PoD would be before 1900, but focus of the discussion should be how such a state would affect modern world politics, and the expanded role of the Catholic Church in the modern world with the institution actually controlling the equivalent of a mid-sized country.

So, how would the Papal States (or any sucessor, with the Pope as the Head of state, that might encompass a larger share of the penninsula) work in the modern world?

It depends on the POD.
France winning the Franco-Prussian war somehow is a thing, averting Italian unification altogether or stopping it at an early phases are different beasts.
In the first case, the Papal state would be dominated by confrontation with a hostile, and probably much more secular, Italy.
Otherwise, things may play out differently.
If there is any significant state that claims a legitimacy even vaguely based on Italian nationalism, Rome will probably be a significant focus for it. This would shape alignments in Europe in relevant ways, likely to the point of butterfying away both World Wars as we know them.
Italy was only the less important among the European Powers after unification, but still was one. Her very existence as a state had to be reckoned with quite a lot. I think that relationship with anything claims to be "Italy" would shape any Papal state unless it is the dominating force in it (which in turn is not impossible with a POD in 1848 for example).
 
I know the actual PoD would be before 1900, but focus of the discussion should be how such a state would affect modern world politics, and the expanded role of the Catholic Church in the modern world with the institution actually controlling the equivalent of a mid-sized country.

So, how would the Papal States (or any sucessor, with the Pope as the Head of state, that might encompass a larger share of the penninsula) work in the modern world?

So are we positing a Republic of Italy with it's capital at, say, Florence or Milan covering everything from Tuscany northwards and a Papal States covering everything from Umbria south? Or does the Papal State cover all of Italy? Or is there still a seperate Neapolitan state?

It all depends on the exact mechanics of the setup- if North Italy is a Republic which saw it's formation in opposition to the Papal States then obviously things won't be so rosy.
 
Pius IX being forced to accept the generous conditions laid out by King Victor Emmanuel II would be a start given, while no longer being a nation itself, the Vatican would maintain control over the Leonine City, and its infrastructure funded by the Italian government. The Law of Guarantees, or something similar, would expand upon this.

At some point after that, in the 1900's, they may gain back complete sovereignty over the Leonine City. Beyond that however, I fail to see much in the way of success.
 
Other than the normal setup (that's just central Italy), I was thinking Papal States that dominate and/or integrate the northern half of the penninsula at the very least.
 
If the Papal States survive to 2012, I see them becoming a UK-style monarchy where the Pope doesn't actually have power. I think that representative government is such an ingrained part of the modern zeitgeist that there's no way that the Papal States can have any respect if they keep the Pope as absolute ruler. Also, I imagine that in ATL as OTL, modern popes would prefer to be religious leaders than temporal ones: writing theology, being inspirational, and dabbling in diplomacy only as a moral guide.

If I'm not mistaken, in OTL Vatican City the Pope is theoretically the absolute monarch, but in practice there's a small council of cardinals that actually governs the territory. In an ATL where the Papal States have a sizable population and popularly elected council, you could have an interesting situation if the council ever tries to do something like legalize abortion. The legal conflict could be the big story in newspapers around the world.

Over the years, there will be a lot more anti-Catholic and anti-Vatican sentiment. There might be more pro-monarchy and anti-democratic sentiment among Catholics. There will certainly be tension between the Papal States and Italy (to the extent that it would be hard for the Papal States to survive this long). But it is possible that all of these will die down by 2012.
 
If the Papal States survive to 2012, I see them becoming a UK-style monarchy where the Pope doesn't actually have power. I think that representative government is such an ingrained part of the modern zeitgeist that there's no way that the Papal States can have any respect if they keep the Pope as absolute ruler. Also, I imagine that in ATL as OTL, modern popes would prefer to be religious leaders than temporal ones: writing theology, being inspirational, and dabbling in diplomacy only as a moral guide.

The modern zeitgeist where? The 20th century OTL was more authoritarian in its nondemocratic areas than the 19th.

Can't see why the Pope as an absolute ruler over the Papal states would be dismissed by the people who accept him as Head of the Church,
 
The modern zeitgeist where? The 20th century OTL was more authoritarian in its nondemocratic areas than the 19th.

Touché. I almost responded by saying "You know I mean Europe". But of course, Europe wasn't all that democratic in the 20th century.

So, I will weaken my statement to saying that many people will particularly resent Papal authoritarianism, taking from the same tradition as Garibaldi. If political ideals evolve in this timeline similar to how they did OTL (certainly not guaranteed), many freedom-loving Catholics would view the Papal States as a stumbling block to their faith.

The following possibilities are what stand out to me, but there could be other interpretations:
1. The pope has a lot of authority. The world tolerates this. -> Catholicism thrives, and there are probably other monarchies in Catholic Europe. The world of 2012 is reminiscent of the world of the 1800s except with airplanes and cable TV.
2. The pope has a lot of authority. The world does not tolerate this. -> The Papal States are considered a backwater. Some subjects love the Pope, but some are actively working to make a revolution. In countries like the US (strong democratic rhetoric plus Protestant majority), there is violence between Catholics and non-Catholics, and Catholics change religions in droves. I wouldn't expect the Papal States to last much longer than about... 1870.
3. Papal States are mostly democratic. -> The world has another delightfully quaint but useless monarch. In the government and military of the Papal States, people with delightfully quaint titles. The Holy See has an even greater diplomatic presence than OTL. There might be a little bit of tension between the Papal States and *Italy, but not enough for war to break out anytime soon. The parliament (or "Collegium Governoratum" if you excuse my bad Latin) would have constant debates over the tension between a "Catholic identity" and the "will of the people".
 
Touché. I almost responded by saying "You know I mean Europe". But of course, Europe wasn't all that democratic in the 20th century.

Exactly. Western Civilization and democracy are very loosely linked.

So, that aside:

So, I will weaken my statement to saying that many people will particularly resent Papal authoritarianism, taking from the same tradition as Garibaldi. If political ideals evolve in this timeline similar to how they did OTL (certainly not guaranteed), many freedom-loving Catholics would view the Papal States as a stumbling block to their faith.

Now that makes considerably more sense.

The following possibilities are what stand out to me, but there could be other interpretations:
1. The pope has a lot of authority. The world tolerates this. -> Catholicism thrives, and there are probably other monarchies in Catholic Europe. The world of 2012 is reminiscent of the world of the 1800s except with airplanes and cable TV.
2. The pope has a lot of authority. The world does not tolerate this. -> The Papal States are considered a backwater. Some subjects love the Pope, but some are actively working to make a revolution. In countries like the US (strong democratic rhetoric plus Protestant majority), there is violence between Catholics and non-Catholics, and Catholics change religions in droves. I wouldn't expect the Papal States to last much longer than about... 1870.
3. Papal States are mostly democratic. -> The world has another delightfully quaint but useless monarch. In the government and military of the Papal States, people with delightfully quaint titles. The Holy See has an even greater diplomatic presence than OTL. There might be a little bit of tension between the Papal States and *Italy, but not enough for war to break out anytime soon. The parliament (or "Collegium Governoratum" if you excuse my bad Latin) would have constant debates over the tension between a "Catholic identity" and the "will of the people".

I'd say #4 should be added: Like #2, but less intense, and probably longer than 1870-ish.

But judging by OTL as best as we can, a monarchy - even in a monarchies-endure-better-world (#1) - is going to have plenty of parties disgruntled about it. And monarchies or no plenty of political messes in the democratic Protestant countries that exist - if the Pope has real power, people thinking Catholics all obey the pope first and foremost are going to raise that as an issue against JFKs very, very vehemently - even if Catholics aren't violently persecuted.

I think also the issue of the Church ruling - monarchical or otherwise - will disgruntle many of the pro-democracy people.

And a lot depends on how the Papal States exist - I can easily see this turning into #2 even in a world where papal power in and of itself is not objected to. Not very many people in the Papal states were fond of Rome (as in the Papacy) ruling for most of its history, for the same reason that Lombardy had issues with the HRE emperors and so on.
 
Top