Was the Vatican territory at any time ever ruled by a foreign power : Venetian or Habsburg or French ?
This gets into definitions. There were Hapsburg popes, for instance, who lived in basically the same way as any other Hapsburg monarch. They came to power through the established avenues within the Catholic Church, but only after those avenues had been thoroughly corrupted. Does that count?
Does the rule of the Ostrogoths for 60 years count? 493 to 553.
Then at times Rome and thus Vatican Hill was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Though I believe that changed somewhat often.
Technically, Rome and the Vatican were Italian territory starting in 1870 when Italy annexed Latium. It wasn’t until the Lateran Treaty of 1929 that the independence of the Vatican was formally recognized.
I wouldn’t have considered that a foreign power.
Oy!, I just realized the Lombards where actually a Germanic tribe. So that period post Goths would probably count.
I’m not precisely sure we can go by ethnicity, to determine what’s “foreign” to the Vatican. After all, the past three leaders have been Argentine, German, and Polish.
I’m pretty sure the Pope considered the Italian government a “foreign power” during the period cited.
I hadn’t thought of the Ostrogothic occupation of Rome and the Ostrogothic Papacy. I was thinking along the lines of of the period covering the Venetian-Papal(League of Cambrai) wars and later the Habsburg defeat of the Venetian Republic. I thought that at some point the territory of what is now Vatican City may have been occupied by either by the Venetian or later the Habsburg forces. I have not seen any evidence of that.
Does the Sack of Rome count? Not even a full year (6 May 1527 – February 1528), but what a year that was in Rome!
Napoleon annexed Rome to the French Empire in 1809, and it remained under French rule until 1814.
For a big chunk of the 14th Century, the popes resided in the city of Avignon.
Avignon was in the Kingdom of Arles, which was technically part of the Holy Roman Empire, but the popes were French, and their policies were strongly influenced by the French kings.
That was controversial, as was the entire relationship between popes and emperors throughout much of European history. One reading was that the States of the Church were held by the popes as vassals to the emperors, and thus part of the empire. Another reading was that the States of the Church had been given to the popes in 756 by the Frankish king Pepin. The Frankish kingdom later evolved into the Holy Roman Empire. Under this reading, imperial rule was entrusted to the emperors by the popes, rather than the other way around.
With the further complication that those parts of the Vatican that Italy recognised as papal property under the 1871 Law of Guarantees were slightly smaller than those recognised under the Lateran Treaty. Although Italy left the Apostolic Palace etc. unmolested, its forces did occupy St Peter’s Square between 1870 and 1929.
No Habsburg ever became pope. Which is not really surprising, given that, with a handful of exceptions, non-Italians didn’t become popes during the periods when the Habsburgs were Holy Roman emperors, kings in Spain or emperors of Austria. It is true that they sometimes claimed to have a veto over papal elections, but the kings of France also claimed that, which tended to mean that any Habsburg candidates were non-starters. Even Habsburg cardinals were relatively rare and those there were usually didn’t live in Italy.
I think a technical answer is pretty much always, at least for the last couple hundred or so years.
The Vatican is an absolutist government, entirely ruled by the Pope.
And the current ruling Pope is Brazilian. The previous one was German. In fact, I can’t think of any recent Pope who was not born in a foreign territory, outside of Vatican City.
The Gemeiil hospital within Vatican City does include a small obstetrical ward, but I don’t think any Popes have been born there.
Argentinian. By birth, at least; by now, Francis holds Vatican citizenship. Since Argentinian law allows multiple nationality, I don’t think he lost Argentinian citizenship when he acquired the Vatican one (but the argument might be different for Benedict XVI, since German law, by default, provides for the loss of German citizenship upon acquisition of another unless permission is obtained in advance from the German autorities).
I can’t think of any pope born in the Vatican, but many popes were born citizens of the pre-1870 Papal States.
This is interesting. I didn’t know that, thanks.
Vatican citizenship is also given by policy and can be easily removed, so many people hold it on temporary appointment. People generally can’t be stateless, so if they stop being a Vatican citizen without a backup then they automatically become an Italian citizen (Lateran Treaty Article 9). I don’t think Benedict would have been stripped of his Vatican citizenship, but if he were it would still be fine.
But I wouldn’t call pre-1870, 153 years ago ‘recent’.
It is interesting to note that one of the selling points of early missionaries into the heathen lands was that Christianity was a religion that would provide divine creation and recognition of kings. So it was a religion that not only wasn’t a threat, but would actually be happy to provide divine underpinnings to the extant ruler’s authority.
Of course this is a two way street, but once you got past the warrior kings, divine right was always going to be a nice justification for who got to sit on the throne. Didn’t stop a few from trying to blur the lines.