Perhaps we could gain some clarity on this issue if we scrapped the pretentious and totally untrue title --"holy" see (just as we should scrap the phrase "the holy land" when we refer to Israel/Palestine)

And also acknowledge that its very existence is an anachronism (and a relic of the church's integral involvement with the Western imperial project). And which as the author points out was created by an accident of history and the dreadful machinations of Italian power politics.

In fact the place is no more "holy" than the Kremlin or Washington-- or my dunny. It is filled with the same obnoxious patrirachal, power seeking, strutting egos, and as such is full of the usual back stabbing factional power games that are a feature of all institutions.

Pit of snakes would be a more apt term. Or even lunatic asylum.

I would also say that any and every institution that is staffed by celibate men, who live outside of the Pleasure Dome culture of feeling, the senses and ecstatic celebration (and who have never been loved, or made love too, a woman---and therefore had his hard-edged masculinity softened) is by a is by its very nature extremely dangerous.

Perhaps as an alternative we should appoint a COURT JESTER whose job it would be to mock the fake/phoney "holy" pretentions of the place

While Rudd sees Tim Fischer kissing the Pope's ring, he should remember one tenet of Vatican doctrine; "tell a lie often enough, and it becomes accepted as truth".

A good article and apt comment. Two Anbassadors in one city is never a good thing. Turf wars. Establishing a post in a city like Rome is an expensive undertaking and on going costs will be high. What will Australia gain? I venture to suggest very little. The same amount of money spent on putting trained DFAT officers in regional posts would pay dividends in terms of independent information gathering and trade promotion.
It costs a lot less to insert officers into established posts and to keep them there than to open a new post and carve out a network.
Is any one in the Vatican interested in trains and will Tim have an interpreter to translate his unusual use of the English language.
Bruce Haigh

From day one of his Prime Ministerial term, Mr. Rudd has set about increasing this country's profile/influence on the international stage. From the Kyoto talks in Bali to international tours, talking to the Chinese in their own tongue, guest spots at the G8, musings on an Asian economic community etc., there has been an effort to increase this country's (or it's leader's) influence in international affairs. Given that, it is not out of character for Mr. Rudd to put someone close to one of the most influencial leaders on the planet. Whether there is any benefit to Australia's citizens or not remains to be seen.

Ho Hum, I had to chuckle at this...

>>the place is no more "holy" than the Kremlin or Washington-- or my dunny. It is filled with the same obnoxious patrirachal, power seeking, strutting egos<<

I had this sudden picture of your dunny being chock-full of obnoxious patriarchal, power seeking strutting egos.

I'd love to know how many you manage to fit in - mine is too small to swing a cat.

And how they work out whose turn it is, what with all those competing egos...

You have to admit, it's an intriguing image.

It is an odd decision, even going against DFAT advice and being mindful of the $1M unnecessary cost. (Not that going against APS advice is necessarily a bad thing in itself).

The only possible positive I can see in this is that strengthening ties with the Vatican might encourage the Catholic Church to become more 'relevant' and egalitarian on issues like overpopulation, contraception, celibacy and the role of women in the Church. In other words become more humanitarian.

This might be to some a bit like p**ing in the wind but I cannot see any other reason that would validate such a decision.