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.

Valid points. Got me thinking about why it is that Islam doesn't have a central religious government (Saudi Arabia as a de facto one perhaps?). Or more importantly, what shape it would take.

I sometimes wonder what would actually happen if the extremist sects of Islam managed to establish their longed-for caliphate.

I imagine one possibility is a 'vatican' like state existing in Mecca,

Presumably, there would still need to be an apparatus for government the separate states, though in certain quarters such as Saudi Arabia, not much would change. There would still be a government, taking advice from the religious power in Mecca.

While there would be untold damage done in terms of forcing the religion upon people, there's also the possibility that in realising their dream, the ultimately flawed conception of said dream would lead to collapse, with the reality proving much less desirable. My suspicion is that it would result in a nasty decade for these countries, but would collapse and ultimately lead to a decline in influence for extremist groups.

Nevertheless, it would provide an opportunity for direct dialogue at a political level, which always leads to compromise or failure. When extremist groups achieve their goal of power, they're always forced into moderacy or collapse.

But to return from my tangent...

Does anyone else see this as a gesture which is supporting theocracy as a valid form of government?

"But will the fact that Australia has now committed to open-ended multi-million-dollar funding of a fulltime embassy to the Holy See add any real clout to such prime ministerial presentations? That’s the real multi-million-dollar question."
Multi million dollar funding? In his recent book 'the God Delusion', Richard Dawkins wonders where our sense of ethics comes from, and remarks on how selective Christians are when it comes to deciding which parts of the Bible to take as 'Gospel', and which not.
Clearly, neither Rudd nor the Pope have much time for the words of Jesus:
'Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.'
The Pope of course, can claim to own nothing. He merely has total control over billions of dollars of assets.
Rudd, on the other hand, has no such excuse. He -through his wife- is unambiguously rich.
Has anyone else noticed that Rudd isn't actually "Labour"?
The founders of the Australian Labour party must be spinning in their graves.

Is there any connection between the Foreign Minister sending his daughter to a catholic school and this extraordinary appointment?

Well this is quite a win for the Vatican, as to give them credit,
they are one of the most influental lobby groups in the world.

They have learned long ago that pushing buttons at the highest
political level, to achieve their agenda, is far more effective
then convincing the masses. Just a single Catholic senator,
ie Harradine, could make a huge difference for instance.

I guess that some of these politicians can be convinced that
they will be given a Catholic ticket to heaven, if they play
by the Vatican rules.

When George Bush won office in the US, the Vatican lobby
groups sprung into action. Before long, any family planning
organisations that even so much as gave advise on abortion,
had their funding cut off globally. Various organisations
doing great work in places like Africa, were hamstrung,
poor women in Africa suffered as a consequence.

Next thing we had the huge campaign promoting abstinence over
condoms. It was a disaster, but Catholic lobbying worked once
again, as they are so darn good at it.

Why bother with the masses, when twisting the ear of a few
politicians in high office, achieves far more.

It will be interesting to see if the Rudd Govt gets suckholed
into doing the dirty work for the Vatican, as the Howard Govt
did.

I have to disagree that Tim Fisher is an inspired choice. Surely any catholic should be barred from the position, as there is a potential conflict between their religious beliefs and Australian government policy. Could we rely on Tim Fisher to go in to bat on the need for condoms to prevent the spread of aids in Africa, for example? I think not.

My first thoughts when I saw the ambassador-elect being presented to the Pope by the PM (on the evening news) were that Kevin Rudd was desperate to get a slice of the 'WYD' publicity and 'Why does he want Tim Fisher out of the country?

1. Why so many countries have ambassadors in the HOLY SEE?
In the website of the USA embassy in the HOLY SEE I read that
"The United States and the Holy See have collaborated in recent years on many related efforts to further the cause of human dignity. We have joined to address the problem of hunger and malnutrition in the world, rampant in so many areas. The U.S. government recognizes the impressive work carried out by Caritas agencies, religious congregations, lay associations, and volunteer organizations affiliated with the Church on this score.... Further, we believe that the advance of agricultural science and technology can help human beings even in the most difficult environments to produce crops to feed more of their own people."
Probably for the same reasons PLUS we will establish a full time embassy in the the HOLY SEE.
2. Most Australians are catholics and we can not ignore it, if other non catholic countries have embassy in the the Holy See then we must have too.
3. Rudd is a religious man, ( I am atheist), the HOLY SEE is the capital city of the Cristian world, we like it or not, in our days there is a conflict between Christians and Muslims , smaller or bigger, IT IS VERY LOGICAL, AN EXPECTED DECISION FROM THE RUDD TO OPEN A FULL TIME EMBASSY IN THE HOLY SEE.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The Vatican is a totalitarian state and, uniquely in the world, an absolute one. It does not have United Nations membership. In a necessarily pragmatic world, that does not mean we should exclude dialogue with it. However, as Bruce Haigh has pointed out, Rudd’s approach is hardly appropriate.

Being a decent bloke is not enough qualification for Tim Fischer in that job. He held the post of Australia’s Minister for Trade; but we have no trade arrangements with the Vatican, nor are there likely to be any. He is not uniquely qualified in Vatican affairs, where division exists in relation to many matters especially in relation to the rights of women, rather than the Vatican, to control their own fertility.

Considerable doubt exists about Tim ever enhancing his qualifications.
In fact Tim would be counter-productive in that post. As facilitator of the Crawford Conferences held at Parliament House, he has expressed the notion that continued increase in human numbers was not an issue deserving attention. That is a matter of grave importance to the world in general, and to women themselves. It is one upon which the Catholic Church is divided, and upon which the fallibility of Papal decree is increasingly flagged by the otherwise faithful.

Unfortunately, this action by Rudd in relation to representation at the Vatican has all the indications of enhancing the unhelpful aspects of Papal influence upon Australian society. There is no prospect that it will progress the interests of Australian voters. It follows the lead of the 2020 summit, which had no relevance other than voter-massaging.

I think the reason for such arrangements between the Vatican and Nation States is based on the historical use of CONCORDATs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat

The implication of this is is that the signatory Nation State gets the tacit suppport of the Church and all it's followers (ie no active resistance, interference or official political protest) and the Church retains it's power and privilege in that Nation State.

As well as the ones generally known to the public, there are many others that remain secret and not open to public scutiny.

Maybe not a particularly sinister arrangement but historically not an entirely healthy one either.
http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&order=kb_rank%20ASC&kb_id=1211