Talk:Lateran Treaty/Archive 1

Move this page to its original "Lateran Treaty" (singular) page
Gentlemen: It appears that this page was moved from the correct page which is "Lateran Treaty" to this wrong page. The Lateran Pacts of 1929 consisted of three agreements: Its current title is inherently wrong since there was only ONE (1) TREATY involved. Dr mindbender 16:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The Lateran Treaty (singular) which is an agreement between two sovereign powers.
 * 2) The Financial Settlement as payment of the Savoy Monarchy and Italian state to the Holy See.
 * 3) And the Concordat between the Kingdom of Italy and the Church.

Image in the beginning
Can anyone else not see the image in the begining of the article? It may be just me, becuase I'm on the school computers right now, and we all know how those can be ;) Xxpor 15:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Passage right
How can one go around introducing this paragraph in the front article "Italy also has a long-standing agreement, known as the Concordat, to allow visitors to the Vatican to cross Italian territory, because the Papal state has no airport." 

The Money Received by the Holy See
I have come across reference to the exact number of lira paid, which was in the region of 750 million , plus 1 million in 5% bonds and coupons. Presumably the lira in question was of a more substantial nature in the 1920's, as was the Peseta ,in history, and was equally multipally sub-divisible.

I have in the distant past come across a published suggestion that the capital sum paid was invested in German heavy industry by way of the stock-market, which would bring the likeliest contender for advice close to the germany specialist Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli and , ominously , would likely link to  the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. This last is a term from the era of Weimar and refers to the great industrialists and particularly to negotiations held between them and Hitler during December 1932] . If it is the case that the Lateran payment was so invested, and given the inter-action between the Holy See and the Nazi Party, questioning would follow , as interests would have over-lapped  and conflicted . It is not in historical dispute that the  Industrial Magnates saved the Nazi party from  bankruptcy in this period  and changed the course of history by pushing a declining Nazi party in late 1932 to  a re-juvenated publicity machine in early 1933. (The Nuremnurg Trial did not sort this out or achieve true judgement either side of the Atlantic against collaborating [[capital forces , for legal reasons still requiring revisit , if only morally .)

Defenders of the faith have always been dismissive of the Rolf Hochluth play The Deputyin the 1964 based on this investment  and are in general loathe to confront the issue ,even if it is only that of the wider vatican involvement with Hitlerism.

It appears that the Holy See does not ever receive money from world-wide congregations  and that this  Lateran payment  initiated  a fund the which ,presumably ,was invested  in something. A record must exist as to where and how the capital was invested and therefore the Holy See could squash the fear  of this suggstion  ,if it chose. Has it ?

Rolf Hochluth receives 7 (seven) Google results .Famekeeper 10:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I applaud you, FK, that you don't claim the investments in Germany as hard, proved and tested historical facts. I would be very surprised if the Vatican had not invested in Germany too, but I guess they spread the money a bit.


 * Be that as it may, Hochhuth is not history. It is a bad play and historically inaccurate, even if the investment thing were right (and I don't know), that certainly wasn't of any major importance.


 * My google results (English, German, French) not that they prove anything, but hey):


 * Rolf Hochluth receives 8 (all french)
 * Hochluth reveives 13
 * Hochmuth received 85.900
 * Hochhuth 654
 * Hochhuth 87.300
 * Rolf Hochhuth 77.400
 * among them: http://www.geocities.com/frjimlloyd/piusxii.htm


 * Str1977 21:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Link for full text of the Treaties
Could someone put up a better link to a full text of the Treaties? The link that's there right now is to the site of some anti-Catholic guy who also asseted that the Pope is the antichrist. Can't we find something more worthy than that garbage?J.J. Bustamante 12:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte
During the reign of Napoleon and his occupation of the Vatican City, did he at all restrict the power of the Pope? I'm unsure, but from memory Napoleon arranged the area of the Vatican to limit the Pope's power. Anyone able to give some light in this matter? Thanksi, Aeryck89 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lisbon Treaty
The article should really consider looking into whether the new European super-state created by the Lisbon Treaty would have the power to annul the Lateran Treaty and return to an earlier form of agreement which existed under the law of Guarantees. This question appears to be relevant because of the European Court of Human Rights' recent interference in Italian Church-State relations, in which the court wrote that all crucifixes had to be removed from Italian public schools. ADM (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to consider, since the Lateran Treaty is a binding treaty. It can be altered or rescinded solely in the case both parties agree. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights (by the way, this has nothing to do with the EU since it is NOT an EU institution) has no say in treaties between two subjects of international law. Gugganij (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a binding treaty...but if one of the two parties that are so bound (i.e. Italy) were to cease to exist(politically) -- that would effectively end the treaty, yes? I think that is what the fellow is getting at -- if a European super-state were created that left Italy no longer sovereign...what would be the status of this treaty (or any such treaty for that matter). If Italy were a sub-unit of such a state, the treaty may survive, but suppose to avoid that the new super-state divided Italian territory amongst France, Austria etc. and so eliminated all references to "Italy" -- the treaty would be null, yes? Or are there treaties with "Prussia" still in effect today? chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Uninterpreted use of primary sources
An editor has objected to the use of uninterpreted primary sources for statements that they explicitly make. The objection seems to be baseless, since WP:PRIMARY says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source"; and the sources cited in the article do enable anyone to verify that the statements of facts in question are supported by the sources:
 * The Lateran Treaty explicitly says that Mussolini signed the document as "Prime Minister and Head of Government".
 * The Lateran Treaty explicitly says that "Italy recognizes and reaffirms the principle established in the first Article of the Statute of the Kingdom of 4 March 1848, according to which the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion is the only religion of the State."
 * The Italian Constitution explicitly says that the relations between the State and the Catholic Church "are" (not "used to be" or anything similar) "regulated by the Lateran Treaties". Esoglou (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the tags have not been defended in five days, I will now remove them. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)