Republican nationalism–in the West–is all but dead. There are no longer any forgotten ethnic-national groups clamoring for recognition and sovereignty. Its very difficult to whip people into a frenzy with a silly little tri-color and the old ‘Liberty-Equality-Fraternity-andOurNationalValues’ anymore. The only nationalist revivals that happen usually occur on the outermost margins of society, or in very isolated places. When these values do surface in modern discourse, they are usually being championed by some far-right group, which is no longer thoroughly ‘republican nationalistic’ in the classical, 1850s sense.
I differ on your interpretation of 19th century anti-clericalism. The evidence of abuse is scanty, and the official records we have of such abuse is largely venomous accounts by anti-Catholic periodicals. One can say: ‘When there smoke, there is fire.’, though I am inclined to believe–from much experience–that there can be a great deal of smoke, with very little fire. Nevertheless, here is where we diverge: I believe that the root causes of anti-clericalism are in the shift of which community commands one’s identity: formerly, it was the parish-village-burgh level… after the emergence the values which sparked the French Revolution, one’s identity increasingly coagulated around the nation-state. Monarchies and clerics were increasingly considered too-international, and therefore non-national.
I am not suggesting that the spiritual office of our Holy Father is insufficient or lacking in dignity: quite the contrary, it justifies everything. Without it, (politically) he would be a second-rate Italian prince (in the words of von Metternich).
When I used the term ‘Prisoner of Rome’, I meant in its mature, historical sense: not that he is a physical prisoner (duh, obv.), but that the Vatican (temporal) State has been shrunk to the confines of Rome… or even smaller.
I think that your treatment of the ‘ills of the Vatican State, historically’ is superficial: it makes too many assumptions to say that simply because the Pope had power, he exercised it poorly and involved the Catholic world in much bloodshed. At this point, it would have been feasible for the spiritual monarchy to exercise greater oversight over the temporal monarchy: I mean to say that–hypothetically–if the Vatican had scrupulously followed its spiritual mandate, it would have more delicately exercised its temporal power.
Now, in terms of the historical efficacy of the Vatican at one point possessing temporal power, let me give you an example of another church: the Russian Orthodox Church (its predecessor) was entirely co-opted under the rule of Peter I (the proto-autocrat), and in fact only lost power after that point. Dostoyevsky in the The Brothers Karamazov and The Idiot accuses the RCC of sacrificing its hope in the Spiritual Kingdom, by making a pact with the Enemy for a temporal kingdom… But the truth remains: likely, because of God’s will, the Vatican had temporal power during the Medieval period, and exercised this power (both to good ends, and bad ends): and emerged with Her liberty in tact. Several hundred years later, in both cases, when authoritarian powers threatened both states, the co-opted ROC had no ability to resist, and was forced into serving as a party organ. The RCC, on the other hand, allied itself with the House of Savoy and was able to play some part in resisting Nazism to the north, and Fascism within.
The moral of the story: ‘Paradise sleeps in the shadow of swords’ [robbed from Emerson, quoting the Muhammad]. The Church’s temporal power protected her liberty during the worst times in the medieval, Renaissance, and early modern periods. We can judge all we want in retrospect, but those were difficult times for all of Europe.
I am not too familiar with the period in which you speak (Franks and Lombards, and the rest)–as this happened several times–but I assume you mean the Carolingian King Charlemagne, in 800 when he was crowned in Rome, on Easter? I read about the document purporting to be the ‘Donation of Constantine’, when it was proven a forgery. Regardless, there is still a near-1200 year tradition supporting Rome as the chief diocese, and Rome as the center of the Christian world. Even so, a righteous myth is better than a sordid truth. Bette reunite Christendom around the Bishop of Rome than let it fall piecemeal, as the Church did in Anatolia, and in Egypt, and in… the list goes on.
In short, you scrutinize the Church’s history, find out that it was less than holy… that (surprise, surprise) there were backroom deals and ‘black Italian clans’ (noble families in Italy historiclaly allied with the Papacy)… ‘surprise, surprise’, again. But yet the Church still stands, and it does good now as it does then–preaching the Gospels in every corner of the known World. I don’t see any reason to criticize this.
I understand your response to the de-cassock-ization of Western clergy (har, har, har, for Russian history aficionados)… and, frankly, I agree. I am familiar with the non-Christian origins of the cassock, and the plurality of other, equally legitimate clerical garb. Though, I don’t think clergy should have any choice in the matter, and that the cassock is more aesthetically (and ‘officially’, in terms of office) becoming than the clerical suit. It is just too bourgeois, and moves the clergyman ever farther from the theological roots of his office (‘the mystagogue’ and ‘alter Christ’).
As for your diminutive description of the cassock/clerical suit as ‘just street wear’… this is problematic, as our clergymen will inevitably be judged by the public, and our efforts at evangelization risk being undermined if we are ‘just those Protestants who wear black’.
. Anyway, it’s just not that old of a garment, and it is street wear, not a vestment.