The Roman Curia now enjoys formal diplomatic relations with 184 sovereign states and even a seat as permanent observer at the United Nations.

Why exactly does the Roman Curia need this extensive diplomatic network?

  • It might be useful, before reopening this question, to consider the OP's tagline: "Dedicated to exposing the hand of Rome in the world through history and intelligence." If that's not pushing an agenda... Commented Mar 6 at 15:53
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I am more than sure that you are capable of producing an answer to this very basic question without pushing any agenda of my making. I’m sure your answer will reflect your own views and research on the subject. If you are able to give a satisfactory answer why oppose reopening the question if you don’t have an agenda of censorship? Commented Mar 6 at 22:49
  • It's a conspiracy theory - in line with your other question : "Did the Curia cause the Ukraine war?" and I will readily admit my bias to vote to shut down those types of questions hereabouts. I really don't have to answer it ;-) I don't mind reasoned criticism of the Catholic Church one bit - if politically relevant - but this is Illuminati territory. Commented Mar 6 at 22:53
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica if the 2,000 year historical record backs your assertions up then please answer the question with reference to the relevant history and I will be the first to give serious consideration to your argument. Commented Mar 6 at 23:40
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica it goes without saying that if your understanding of history is as blatantly false as the answer below that astonishingly got voted up it will be called out. Commented Mar 7 at 0:25

1 Answer 1


Note that this answer was given before the substantial edit of the question.

Vatican City is the remnant of the Papal States. The Papal States were considerably larger than the present Vatican City, and had diplomatic relations with many other states. Most territory was lost, but the diplomatic recognition continued as long as there was this microstate.

  • So this level of misrepresentation of history gets voted up around here? I think that speaks volumes about what kind of community we are dealing with here. Commented Mar 7 at 0:27
  • 2
    @YaakovTzir Can you explain how this answer is "misrepresenting history"?
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Mar 7 at 7:44
  • @F1Krazy Absolutely. No problem. When the fledgling Kingdom of Italy annexed Rome this put a complete end to the Papal States in 1870 thus creating the Roman question. The Roman Curia and the Pope had no sovereignty over any territory until 1929 when the Lateran treaty was signed by Benito Mussolini. It is therefore completely inaccurate to claim that the Vatican City is a remnant of the Papal States as if there was some kind of continuous sovereignty. It is more accurate to say this was some kind of restoration of sovereignty rather than a remnant. Commented Mar 7 at 16:08
  • @F1Krazy Furthermore one would do well to ask why the Pope of the day was willing to settle for such a reduced territory for the new state to end the Roman Question. Evidently the size of the territory was not his primary concern. He was willing to accept such a tiny territory as this would allow him the legal basis of an international diplomatic network. So now we have established what the Roman Curia’s priority is (to have an extensive international diplomatic network). Why do they feel the need to have it? For what geopolitical agenda? What does their history regarding this question show? Commented Mar 7 at 16:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .