Who would have more power over the entire world: the Pope or the President?
Since the President can mobilize the United States miltary I think the Pope is at quite a disadvantage. I know the Pope has control over the Jesuits, or the Catholic Commandos as I like to think of them, but I don’t know how many aircraft carriers or tanks they might have.
Marc
He could ask the IRA nicely…?
The President needs approval from Congress to mobilize the military.
The effect of the Pope’s word would be questionable, though. Most Catholics don’t hang on his every word and do whatever he says. If he ordered another Crusade, for example, most people would call him insane.
Bottom line - neither the President nor the Catholic Church can stop youngsters from farking like rabbits, so their power is nothing compared to nature. O_o
Have you learned nothing from Vietnam or Iraq?
No matter how many aircraft carriers you have, if you have one BILLION people pissed off at you at a holy level, you’re gonna have something more than a minor itch to deal with. O_o
But you don’t have one billion Catholics. You have one billion Christians, sure, but lots of them are Protestant, most of whom either generally ignore the Pope entirely or are even virulently against Catholicism in general. Others are Orthodox and as such also pay no attention to the Pope. And you don’t have to look far into Catholicism in America to see how American Catholics seem content to pick and choose which parts of Catholic dogma and teaching they are willing to support.
Yeah, but if the Pope issues an order to the faithful not to vote for you for the Office of President, then, your chances of re-election are pretty much shot to hell.
(Pardon the expression.) 
So who holds the ultimate power then? Eh?
ahem
Are you unfamiliar with the War Powers Act? The President can indeed send troops overseas and approve of military actions without permission of congress. Granted he’s only got a limited amount of time to do these things before he needs the approval of congress but there you go.
That wasn’t the question. The question was which person had the most power over the world not which one could stop kids from fucking.
I know those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This also includes those who learn the wrong lessons from history. First, I doubt the Pope has the power to inspire one billion people to hate America. Second, I doubt the Pope has the ability to inspire those who love and respect him into a force to be reckoned with.
Marc
sigh
Define the word “power”. I dunno about you, but I define it as something other than “ability to blow shit up.”
FIrst, I didn’t say he did. In fact, I specifically said that most people would ignore him, but your selective quoting didn’t catch that bit, did it?
Why not? It is hardly without hisorical precedent.
I think it was Stalin who asked “How many divisions does the Pope have?” 
The OPS question has to be more defined though…what exactly do you mean who has more power? Power to do what? General power or specific power and in what areas? They both have ‘power’, but their powers are different from each others. Its a kind of apples to oranges comparison, no?
Better comparisons would be to compare the Pope to other religious leaders or the President of the US to other national leaders.
-XT
Right, and secondly (Iforgot this on my last post), once again, define the term “power.” Your definition is marshalling giant armies to rove across the earth, befelling nations and establishing great empires, I’m guessing.
A succession of Popes has been unable to stop voters in post WW2 Europe from approving issues like divorce and abortion.
As Stalin was once quoted as saying “how many divisions has the Pope?”
hhmmm… if my suspicions that the Vatican and the Pope have a “relationship” with the Devil… then I would say the Pope has more more power.
Otherwise its the other guy with the devil’s backing that is more powerful.
Obviously there are different forms of power. The ability to blow shit up is just the most flashy and readily visible form of power. If you don’t like armies then how about the ability to affect ecomonic powers and diplomatic relations?
The Pope couldn’t even keep England catholic and that was when he had a lot more sway in Europe.
Marc
I would say general power over world events. For instance do you think that the pope had enough power or influence over people to undermine a president’s administration and their decisions?
Well, looking at history, it seems as though several Popes have tested their strength against various princes, kings and emperors. In several cases he came out on top (anyone familiar with the expression “walking to Canossa”?); in others, not so much. In one case Rome was actually sacked by ostensibly Catholic troops.
What we have to ask ourselves is, how much power our current Pope has compared to his 14th-century predecessors. On the one hand, he had fewer worshipers, and was much less organized; on the other hand, the Church’s temporal powers have decreased, its richest and most influential power base - Europe - is largely secular, and it isn’t the only flavor of Christanity on the menu.
One thing’s for sure - the President of the USA has far more power than any medieval ruler.
shrugs I don’t disagree, I’m sure the PotUSA has more practical power. I’m just saying that it isn’t the huge landslide you’d think it is. The Pope could probably still topple a few countries.
I’m not thinking of the current Pope, who doesn’t have the power to urinate standing up, I’m thinking of whoever will replace him. It is entirely possible (though maybe not likely) that the next Pope will be Latin American, and a proactive Latin American Pope (while possibly creating a schism) would have a HELLUVA lot of power over, well, Latin America.