WI: Surviving Papal Temporal Power in Latium

What if Pope Pius IX accepted Napoleon's proposal of December 31, 1859 with respect to the question of the Papacy's temporal power? The pope was to renounce direct control over the Romagna, recognizing the King of Italy as his vicar in those territories. In return, all of the Catholic powers (France, Italy, Austria, and possibly Spain and Portugal) would guarantee the Pope's territory in Latium, including possession of Rome.
 
Pretty bad tensions emerging fairly soon, I guess. There are a few unaddressed problems that will break out in the course of the next few decades:

- Italian nationalists will perceive this as a huge slight. Rome is the capital of Italy, as far as they are concerned this is not a negotiable position. You could see a deep and lasting divide between the Church and large parts of the Italian right and moderate patriotic vote. Perhaps a more clearly developed tripolar political system - Right-wing nationalists, left-wing Socialists and the religious conservatives? Zentrum with a vengeance. Given the international guarantees, I don't think it would necessarily lead to war, and eventually the government in Turin (Florence? Milan?) would acept realitioes much like the Netherlands reconciled themselves to the existence of Belgium.

- The liberty gap will continue to exist. The papal states were not like the Vatican City, no kindly spiritual retreat where a bunch of elderly sages pondered moral philosophy while picturesque Swiss guards and contented wokers met their every needs. They had a real military, a genuinely nasty secret police, and a large (and to a large part unhappy) population of laypeople. Rome was still a large-ish city, with all that entailed, international traffic, news flow, a press, politics, a working class. And the Papal States were not run on theology or Catholic Social Teaching, they largely ran on undiluted tradition. This was a government that would hae its police take away the children of Jewish families secretly baptised by their Catholic nannies. IIRC they hadn't executed a heretic in quite a while, but the laws were on the books. You could certainly do time for thoughtcrime. Once some parts of the Papal states become part of Italy - with its zest for industrial development, relative political freedom and embracing of modern technology - you get a visible divide. I wouldn't take the East Germany/West Germany analogy too far, but I could see Lazio getting problems with both productive labourers leaving and political agitators coming in.

- That takes me to three, the incredibly toxic nature of this state for the standing of the Catholic Church in many nation-states. stories of life in the papal enclave will leak out and no doubt be embellished, and now every Catholic priest is as representative of a regime mentally filed with Tsarist Russia and the Ottomans. Pius IX may well do to political Catholicism what Stalin did to Communism. He was a divisive enough figure OTL.

I don't see an easy way out of these traps for the papacy, either. The entire logic of the system is geared towards intransigewnce. Bowing to superior power and accommodating to whatever the secular state mandated (while loudly protesting its abuise and captivity) was a possibility because it was the only viable choice. I don't see how any pope can gracefully accede to reforming his state and doing what those secularists tell him to. It will take enormous pressure and long time - time that, with discontent inside the borders and anticlericalism rife outside, may simply not be there ITTL.
 

maverick

Banned
I think it could happen, but that the arrangement would be temporary.

Italian Nationalists would want Italian Sovereignty over the lands to be ultimately recognized, Napoleon III will eventually fall or die, and the Second Empire was not the most stable state ever, so the responsibility for the Papal Estates falls on the shoulders of Franz Josef, who would be the Pope's benefactor now.

If the King of Italy is honorable enough to keep his end of the deal and strong enough to keep his country from disintegrating into civil war, there's still the chance that his successor will just screw over the Pope to get on the people's good side, specially if he can justify it to the Liberals as "ending feudalism."
 
Agreed. At some point or another Italian nationalism will kick in, and Papal authority is going to be reduced, by what-ever means necessary.
 
I think it could happen, but that the arrangement would be temporary.

Italian Nationalists would want Italian Sovereignty over the lands to be ultimately recognized, Napoleon III will eventually fall or die, and the Second Empire was not the most stable state ever, so the responsibility for the Papal Estates falls on the shoulders of Franz Josef, who would be the Pope's benefactor now.

If the King of Italy is honorable enough to keep his end of the deal and strong enough to keep his country from disintegrating into civil war, there's still the chance that his successor will just screw over the Pope to get on the people's good side, specially if he can justify it to the Liberals as "ending feudalism."

Italy didn't have any legitimate claim to Rome at the time- nationalist claims do not equal moral authority.

Given Franz Josef's personality, he would probably honor any guarentee given however (unless Italy attacks during a severe Hungarian revolt or something and Austria's own security is in trouble)- the Papacy may still be in a precarious position, but it would have a good chance of lasting until 1900.
 
Pretty bad tensions emerging fairly soon, I guess. There are a few unaddressed problems that will break out in the course of the next few decades:

- Italian nationalists will perceive this as a huge slight. Rome is the capital of Italy, as far as they are concerned this is not a negotiable position. You could see a deep and lasting divide between the Church and large parts of the Italian right and moderate patriotic vote. Perhaps a more clearly developed tripolar political system - Right-wing nationalists, left-wing Socialists and the religious conservatives? Zentrum with a vengeance. Given the international guarantees, I don't think it would necessarily lead to war, and eventually the government in Turin (Florence? Milan?) would acept realitioes much like the Netherlands reconciled themselves to the existence of Belgium.

- The liberty gap will continue to exist. The papal states were not like the Vatican City, no kindly spiritual retreat where a bunch of elderly sages pondered moral philosophy while picturesque Swiss guards and contented wokers met their every needs. They had a real military, a genuinely nasty secret police, and a large (and to a large part unhappy) population of laypeople. Rome was still a large-ish city, with all that entailed, international traffic, news flow, a press, politics, a working class. And the Papal States were not run on theology or Catholic Social Teaching, they largely ran on undiluted tradition. This was a government that would hae its police take away the children of Jewish families secretly baptised by their Catholic nannies. IIRC they hadn't executed a heretic in quite a while, but the laws were on the books. You could certainly do time for thoughtcrime. Once some parts of the Papal states become part of Italy - with its zest for industrial development, relative political freedom and embracing of modern technology - you get a visible divide. I wouldn't take the East Germany/West Germany analogy too far, but I could see Lazio getting problems with both productive labourers leaving and political agitators coming in.

- That takes me to three, the incredibly toxic nature of this state for the standing of the Catholic Church in many nation-states. stories of life in the papal enclave will leak out and no doubt be embellished, and now every Catholic priest is as representative of a regime mentally filed with Tsarist Russia and the Ottomans. Pius IX may well do to political Catholicism what Stalin did to Communism. He was a divisive enough figure OTL.

I don't see an easy way out of these traps for the papacy, either. The entire logic of the system is geared towards intransigewnce. Bowing to superior power and accommodating to whatever the secular state mandated (while loudly protesting its abuise and captivity) was a possibility because it was the only viable choice. I don't see how any pope can gracefully accede to reforming his state and doing what those secularists tell him to. It will take enormous pressure and long time - time that, with discontent inside the borders and anticlericalism rife outside, may simply not be there ITTL.

Good points all, and I like the west Germany / east Germany analogy.
IMHO, this rump papal state would be like a besieged fortress, and the conservative, anti-modernist stance of the church (and of Pius IX in particular) would increase by an order of magnitude: this was a state were citizens were mandated to attend religious functions and to take sacraments under threat of fines and even prison.

There is no reasonable way that this situation can last forever; actually the more it lasts the bloodier will be the changeover, and the more damaged will be the standing of the papacy.

My take is that most likely it will go as per OTL: as soon as France and/or Austria will be in trouble (or as soon as Italy will have secured alliances), Italy will denounce the treaty and occupy Latium and Rome as they did IOTL in 1870. Notwithstanding Francis Joseph blustering, Austria will not intervene if France is flat on its back, like they did not intervene IOTL. It is quite possible that Italy will pass a set of laws similar to OTL Laws of Guarantees: it is the most sensible approach, and possibly the default one.

It would be a different case, however, if the stand-off lasts too long, or even if there is a serious insurrection repressed in blood by foreign troops. The "bloody-handed pope" would be a big bonus for anti-clericalism and anti-catholicism all over Europe. I would also not discount a more reactionary policy being blessed by Pius IX, both in civil and in religious areas. IOTL the doctrine of papal infallibility triggered a schism, in particular in the Netherlands and Germany: Bismarck supported the German schismatics as part of his kulturkampf (but his support petered out as soon as he signed a concordat). My take is that ITTL the schism would be more successful, and certainly thrive in Italy too (a lot of priests had divided allegiances, and the papal intransigence was not liked at all). It might end up badly in many different ways, from Pius IX (or his successor) leaving Rome to live in exile in Spain or Austria to the same being killed in a terrorist attack. It might easily end up in the effective end of the papacy, not just the papal states.
 
Italy didn't have any legitimate claim to Rome at the time- nationalist claims do not equal moral authority.

.

In the 19th century (and the 20th too) nationalist claims routinely trumped any kind of moral authority, even conceding (which I don't) that the moral authority of the pope extended also to his persona as a temporal prince.

Not to mention that the most of the papal subjects were much in favor of annexation to Italy, and only French bayonets prevented it for a decade.
 
In the 19th century (and the 20th too) nationalist claims routinely trumped any kind of moral authority, even conceding (which I don't) that the moral authority of the pope extended also to his persona as a temporal prince.

Not to mention that the most of the papal subjects were much in favor of annexation to Italy, and only French bayonets prevented it for a decade.

I'm not disputing that, I'm just pointing out that maverick's description was inaccurate.

My take is that most likely it will go as per OTL: as soon as France and/or Austria will be in trouble (or as soon as Italy will have secured alliances), Italy will denounce the treaty and occupy Latium and Rome as they did IOTL in 1870. Notwithstanding Francis Joseph blustering, Austria will not intervene if France is flat on its back, like they did not intervene IOTL. It is quite possible that Italy will pass a set of laws similar to OTL Laws of Guarantees: it is the most sensible approach, and possibly the default one.

The difference in this TL would be that Franz Josef would have actually been obliged by treaty to defend the Papacy, which he wasn't in OTL.
 
Italy didn't have any legitimate claim to Rome at the time- nationalist claims do not equal moral authority.

I'm not disputing that, I'm just pointing out that maverick's description was inaccurate.
I'm happy you don't dispute the Italian claim anymore, but your former post told another story



The difference in this TL would be that Franz Josef would have actually been obliged by treaty to defend the Papacy, which he wasn't in OTL.
The pope appealed to the emperor in 1870, but nothing came out of it even if the Habsburg had a long-standing relation and strong ties with the papacy (and retained a right of veto on the election of popes until WW1): nothing came out of it. Even in the presence of a more formal treaty I doubt very much Austria would try an intervention, given its diplomatic isolation after the war of 1866.
 
I'm disputing maverick's description because Italy did not have an actual moral claim- it had a nationalist claim, which was considered a moral claim at the time.

You might be right on the Austrian issue however, I'll have to look into it.
 
I'm disputing maverick's description because Italy did not have an actual moral claim- it had a nationalist claim, which was considered a moral claim at the time.

You might be right on the Austrian issue however, I'll have to look into it.

Not to nitpick, but your first post was referring to a "legitimate claim" by Italy: there are no "moral claims" in politics, even when (even more so? :D) the pope is involved as one of the contenders.
 
Top