This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! |
I just changed "Papal states" to "Papal States", which now disagrees with the article title, unfortunately, so maybe I shouldn't have done that... Okay, I don't know much about the history of the region in question, but I'd thought it was sort of like a country, so that its name would be capitalised, like "England" and so on. Am I wrong? -- Oliver P. 02:36 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
The Papal States were a country, so the capital S is correct. -- Zoe
Correct Zoe. Maybe you, I and Oliver should set up a sub-group called PNHC - Proper Nouns Have Capitals and wage a crusade on Wiki!!!! :) JtdIrL 03:51 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
Or even call ourselves the Capital Letters Liberation Front - or even Capital Letters On Proper nouns. Here comes CLOP to the rescue. JtdIrL 04:19 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
If someone knows something about the Papal army I'd love to know anything. Exept abot the Vatican guard(I already know about them,but hey if you know something I don't, DO share), Im mean like the Papal navy and Roman militia/army. Thanks.-- Philippe Auguste 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this article implies that "the Papal States" effectively ended in 1870, but it says nothing about when they started. The article itself seems a bit vague on this seemingly important point. Would that beginning be:
… or some other year or range of years? — Jeff Q 18:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's not at all clear. To go backwards, the Papal States in their modern configuration did not really emerge until the early 16th century, when the popes finally turned their theoretical sovereignty over the area into real sovereignty. Before the 13th century or so, the Pope's temporal domain was considered to be part of the Holy Roman Empire - even later, this idea vaguely survived. I would say sometime in the 8th century. Before that, the areas that would become the Papal States were pretty clearly the "Exarchate of Ravenna" and the "Duchy of Rome", which were part of the Byzantine Empire. But for a long time after that, it's very, very unclear. I wouldn't want to actually state a beginning date, because it would be misleading. But you're right that we need to be more explicit about it. john k 02:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think Prisoner in the Vatican should be merged into the appropriate section of this article. — OwenBlacker 00:30, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
I so know that I shouldn't open this entirely pointless can of worms, but: why the changes from Pippin to Pepin? (Which didn't even result in a consistent spelling in the article, I note.) When I rewrote the article, I changed spellings to Pippin because the title of the main Wikipedia page for the individual in question is spelled that way ( Pippin III). Aaaaannnd a quick glance at the talk page there seems to indicate that this is part of a pointless argument about French and German history. Sigh.
So, John Kenney, why the change? And if Pippin must become Pepin, why must he be Pepin the Short instead of Pepin III? My naggling copy editor sense wants it consistent with the article it's linking to, and, failing that, to be at least consistent within the article. So I'd like to put the Pippins back, but if that's going to result in some kind of painfully lame edit war about an issue that is not in the least worth it, just let me know in advance and I'll make the remaining Pippins Pepins instead. -- Jfruh 17:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, he should be Pepin the Short because that's what he's actually called by historians. He's not called Pepin III by any appreciable number of people. And the trend is certainly for Pippins to become Pepins, rather than vice versa. Why that should be, I can't say, but it is certainly the case. - Nunh-huh 02:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pepin the Short is, indeed, the more common name. If I left it inconsistent within this article, that was unintentional. But I literally cannot think of any books that I have read which call him "Pippin" rather than "Pepin." Even the Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, which is rather old, calls him Pepin. And more recent books certainly do. john k 02:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to delete Pepin the Short so I can move Pippin III there, but I keep getting error messages. john k 02:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I already moved Donation of Pippin to Donation of Pepin and changed that article - sorry for missing the change on that, I was busy trying to delete Pepin the Short so I could move Pippin III there. Still no luck, weirdly. But I'll get to it soon enough. That Frankish son of a bastard will feel my wrath. john k 03:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pippin is the Germanic form - presumably this is what he called himself. I would assume "Pepinus" is the Latin, although I'm not sure. Written documents from the time would have used the Latin form. john k 13:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And, just what is the meaning of "Pepin or Pippin, etc.? Perhaps it merely meant "Small" or "short of statue?", etc., thus what is the real difference between this current subject and :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_the_Hunchback ? But perhaps Weston has it correct? thus; "'Peregrin', short 'Pippin'"
96.19.147.40 (
talk) 02:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
The inclusion of the "Pentapolis" in the list included in the "Donation of Pepin" section is ambiguous (See Pentapolis article). Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 16:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just recovering from a major system crash, so I'm not able myself at the moment (but might be able sometime soon), but does anyone fancy creating one or more maps of the Papal States, with any map showing either all of modern Italy or all of the Holy Roman Empire? — OwenBlacker 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, but should it be mentioned in the main article- it does give a 'mythological' raison d'être for the papal states. Reynaert-ad 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC) But, just how much reality can anyone give this preposterous claim? It is surely a claim that is best considered as "fraud" or worse! Plenty of sources denounce it! 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Is the flag authentic? Its presence in the disinfobox tells nothing of where and when it was used. -- Wetman 10:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It'd be nice to have a map that shows Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin. john k ( talk) 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"for the modern State of Vatican City, an enclave within Italy's national capital, Rome, which was founded in 1929, again allowing the Holy See the practical benefits of territorial sovereignty."
I was under the impression that Rome was founded somewhat earlier than 1929, or have I significantly missed the context in which it is being stated here? JonEastham ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Now exist a retirect from Duchy of Rome to Papal States. Duchy of Rome needs a own page, so i suggest a translation from it.wiki ducato romano. Thanks and bye -- Wento ( talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Donatio Constantini, whereby the Popes became owners of large parts of Italy by using forged documents, should be merged with this article. Poldebol ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
To state that the Papal States existed continuously from 752 to 1870, as the infobox currently does, is factually wrong. They did not exist from 1808 to 1814. The box really should state "752-1808, 1814-1870" or something similar. 68.62.0.178 ( talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
United Italian provinces redirects here, but I found no mention of them in the article 130.251.167.41 ( talk) 14:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The new map is wrong, if fails to display the Comtat Venaissin and the papal communes in the Kingdom of Naples. Therefore, I'm going to revert the edit. Regards ( Jack1755 ( talk) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
This flag is not of the Papal States! It is the flag of the Comtat Venaissin. -- Oren neu dag ( talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The article should maybe try to reflect on whether buying islands in the Pacific might procure a greater legal security to the Holy See. Such islands would presumably be listed along with other properties of the Holy See, which already include churches in Italy. The existence of small native populations in these islands might serve as a practical socio-political replacement to the Pontifical States, who were also known as the States of the Holy See. ADM ( talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The infobox describes the Papal States as a theocracy. This seems inaccurate, both since, according to the article: "In practice, the Popes were unable to exercise effective sovereignty over the extensive and mountainous territories of the Papal States, and the region preserved its old Lombard system of government, with many small countships and marquisates, each centered upon a fortified rocca." So, for most of its history "feudalism" would be more accurate than "theocracy".
And, even in theory, it wasn't really a theocracy - the Pope was both monarch of the Papal States and head of the Church, but, IIRC, they were separate legal entities. Even now, the Holy See is a separate legal entity from Vatican City, and part of the reason why is because it had always been separate from the realms ruled by the pope's temporal power. (In the same way that Elizabeth II is Queen of both Britain and Canada, but that doesn't make Canada part of Britain.) The Papal States' government was not actually theocratic... Vultur ( talk) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The article says that "Papal States" is the preferred English term for the Stato Pontificio, but "Papal State" is clearly the correct translation. If it were "Papal States", the Italian name would have been "Stati Pontifici", which was much less frequently used. So why is the plural version considered the preferred English name? 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 04:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thus this is the last sentence as it stands now;
"By 1300, the Papal States, along with the rest of the Italian principalities, were effectively independent. During the Renaissance the Spanish Emperors fought wars over the Papal States, often against the Pope." Wow, it seems a lot of time is ignored here! How about the Sack of Rome by Charles V, etc.?
If you are telling a story, you do not ignore so many important events! This is, of course, only my humble opinion. 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Thus we read there;
"With the Christian emperorship of Constantine I, the Church's private property grew quickly through the donations of the pious and the wealthy; the Lateran Palace was the first significant donation, a gift of Constantine himself." As historians, you must know that the reported "conversion" of Constantine is the subject of much debate, especially charges of "forged documents", etc.! But your site, gives this event if indeed it ever occured, a "fait accomli!"
Perhaps it merely should be alleged? 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Found in the "Origins" section is this;
"It would, however, be wrong to suppose that all papal claims of secular jurisdiction, taxation and service, etc. were exactly defined, or that they applied with equal force all over a large region of central Italy, or that local warlords or others readily conceded obedience to Rome. This was no modern state yet, no equivalent to the contemporary strong monarchies of France or England. Force of tradition and forceful possession counted more than written deeds of donation. –D.S. Chambers[2]
And history be damned, there does exist the real facts that until the 19th century CE, there seems to be no "real" evidence of a prior unified Italy! 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 01:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Should there be a list of the actual 'states or provinces'? Jackiespeel ( talk) 11:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Papal States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==References== The main thing that this article lacks is its significant lack of sources. Despite this it is an article of good depth and breadth. With references i see no reson why this couldnt become a GA-- Seddon69 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The origins section starts with "For its first 300 years the Catholic Church was persecuted and unrecognized, unable to hold or transfer property". Only a Catholic could write this, and in the interest of neutrality we should say that that Christians were persecuted for 300 years in this sentence, leading to the existing content about Constantine creating the Roman Catholic Church. 47.137.185.72 ( talk) 17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Just saying. Leaving flag up for now. Elinruby ( talk) 04:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
While the papal "STATES" have not existed since 1870 the Church still has a state the Vatican city a papal "STATE" singular soo that is a problem thingy 2A04:241E:202:6900:D16C:544F:39F3:C117 ( talk) 19:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Greetings fellow Wikipedians! Information from this article is likely relevant to the article Catholic Church and politics. I'm flagging this here in case anyone with time and knowledge or interest in this topic wishes to add some of this information to Catholic Church and politics, which would be greatly appreciated and help round out that article some more. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 00:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! |
I just changed "Papal states" to "Papal States", which now disagrees with the article title, unfortunately, so maybe I shouldn't have done that... Okay, I don't know much about the history of the region in question, but I'd thought it was sort of like a country, so that its name would be capitalised, like "England" and so on. Am I wrong? -- Oliver P. 02:36 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
The Papal States were a country, so the capital S is correct. -- Zoe
Correct Zoe. Maybe you, I and Oliver should set up a sub-group called PNHC - Proper Nouns Have Capitals and wage a crusade on Wiki!!!! :) JtdIrL 03:51 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
Or even call ourselves the Capital Letters Liberation Front - or even Capital Letters On Proper nouns. Here comes CLOP to the rescue. JtdIrL 04:19 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
If someone knows something about the Papal army I'd love to know anything. Exept abot the Vatican guard(I already know about them,but hey if you know something I don't, DO share), Im mean like the Papal navy and Roman militia/army. Thanks.-- Philippe Auguste 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this article implies that "the Papal States" effectively ended in 1870, but it says nothing about when they started. The article itself seems a bit vague on this seemingly important point. Would that beginning be:
… or some other year or range of years? — Jeff Q 18:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's not at all clear. To go backwards, the Papal States in their modern configuration did not really emerge until the early 16th century, when the popes finally turned their theoretical sovereignty over the area into real sovereignty. Before the 13th century or so, the Pope's temporal domain was considered to be part of the Holy Roman Empire - even later, this idea vaguely survived. I would say sometime in the 8th century. Before that, the areas that would become the Papal States were pretty clearly the "Exarchate of Ravenna" and the "Duchy of Rome", which were part of the Byzantine Empire. But for a long time after that, it's very, very unclear. I wouldn't want to actually state a beginning date, because it would be misleading. But you're right that we need to be more explicit about it. john k 02:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think Prisoner in the Vatican should be merged into the appropriate section of this article. — OwenBlacker 00:30, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
I so know that I shouldn't open this entirely pointless can of worms, but: why the changes from Pippin to Pepin? (Which didn't even result in a consistent spelling in the article, I note.) When I rewrote the article, I changed spellings to Pippin because the title of the main Wikipedia page for the individual in question is spelled that way ( Pippin III). Aaaaannnd a quick glance at the talk page there seems to indicate that this is part of a pointless argument about French and German history. Sigh.
So, John Kenney, why the change? And if Pippin must become Pepin, why must he be Pepin the Short instead of Pepin III? My naggling copy editor sense wants it consistent with the article it's linking to, and, failing that, to be at least consistent within the article. So I'd like to put the Pippins back, but if that's going to result in some kind of painfully lame edit war about an issue that is not in the least worth it, just let me know in advance and I'll make the remaining Pippins Pepins instead. -- Jfruh 17:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, he should be Pepin the Short because that's what he's actually called by historians. He's not called Pepin III by any appreciable number of people. And the trend is certainly for Pippins to become Pepins, rather than vice versa. Why that should be, I can't say, but it is certainly the case. - Nunh-huh 02:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pepin the Short is, indeed, the more common name. If I left it inconsistent within this article, that was unintentional. But I literally cannot think of any books that I have read which call him "Pippin" rather than "Pepin." Even the Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, which is rather old, calls him Pepin. And more recent books certainly do. john k 02:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to delete Pepin the Short so I can move Pippin III there, but I keep getting error messages. john k 02:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I already moved Donation of Pippin to Donation of Pepin and changed that article - sorry for missing the change on that, I was busy trying to delete Pepin the Short so I could move Pippin III there. Still no luck, weirdly. But I'll get to it soon enough. That Frankish son of a bastard will feel my wrath. john k 03:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pippin is the Germanic form - presumably this is what he called himself. I would assume "Pepinus" is the Latin, although I'm not sure. Written documents from the time would have used the Latin form. john k 13:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And, just what is the meaning of "Pepin or Pippin, etc.? Perhaps it merely meant "Small" or "short of statue?", etc., thus what is the real difference between this current subject and :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_the_Hunchback ? But perhaps Weston has it correct? thus; "'Peregrin', short 'Pippin'"
96.19.147.40 (
talk) 02:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
The inclusion of the "Pentapolis" in the list included in the "Donation of Pepin" section is ambiguous (See Pentapolis article). Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 16:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just recovering from a major system crash, so I'm not able myself at the moment (but might be able sometime soon), but does anyone fancy creating one or more maps of the Papal States, with any map showing either all of modern Italy or all of the Holy Roman Empire? — OwenBlacker 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, but should it be mentioned in the main article- it does give a 'mythological' raison d'être for the papal states. Reynaert-ad 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC) But, just how much reality can anyone give this preposterous claim? It is surely a claim that is best considered as "fraud" or worse! Plenty of sources denounce it! 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Is the flag authentic? Its presence in the disinfobox tells nothing of where and when it was used. -- Wetman 10:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It'd be nice to have a map that shows Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin. john k ( talk) 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"for the modern State of Vatican City, an enclave within Italy's national capital, Rome, which was founded in 1929, again allowing the Holy See the practical benefits of territorial sovereignty."
I was under the impression that Rome was founded somewhat earlier than 1929, or have I significantly missed the context in which it is being stated here? JonEastham ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Now exist a retirect from Duchy of Rome to Papal States. Duchy of Rome needs a own page, so i suggest a translation from it.wiki ducato romano. Thanks and bye -- Wento ( talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Donatio Constantini, whereby the Popes became owners of large parts of Italy by using forged documents, should be merged with this article. Poldebol ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
To state that the Papal States existed continuously from 752 to 1870, as the infobox currently does, is factually wrong. They did not exist from 1808 to 1814. The box really should state "752-1808, 1814-1870" or something similar. 68.62.0.178 ( talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
United Italian provinces redirects here, but I found no mention of them in the article 130.251.167.41 ( talk) 14:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The new map is wrong, if fails to display the Comtat Venaissin and the papal communes in the Kingdom of Naples. Therefore, I'm going to revert the edit. Regards ( Jack1755 ( talk) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
This flag is not of the Papal States! It is the flag of the Comtat Venaissin. -- Oren neu dag ( talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The article should maybe try to reflect on whether buying islands in the Pacific might procure a greater legal security to the Holy See. Such islands would presumably be listed along with other properties of the Holy See, which already include churches in Italy. The existence of small native populations in these islands might serve as a practical socio-political replacement to the Pontifical States, who were also known as the States of the Holy See. ADM ( talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The infobox describes the Papal States as a theocracy. This seems inaccurate, both since, according to the article: "In practice, the Popes were unable to exercise effective sovereignty over the extensive and mountainous territories of the Papal States, and the region preserved its old Lombard system of government, with many small countships and marquisates, each centered upon a fortified rocca." So, for most of its history "feudalism" would be more accurate than "theocracy".
And, even in theory, it wasn't really a theocracy - the Pope was both monarch of the Papal States and head of the Church, but, IIRC, they were separate legal entities. Even now, the Holy See is a separate legal entity from Vatican City, and part of the reason why is because it had always been separate from the realms ruled by the pope's temporal power. (In the same way that Elizabeth II is Queen of both Britain and Canada, but that doesn't make Canada part of Britain.) The Papal States' government was not actually theocratic... Vultur ( talk) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The article says that "Papal States" is the preferred English term for the Stato Pontificio, but "Papal State" is clearly the correct translation. If it were "Papal States", the Italian name would have been "Stati Pontifici", which was much less frequently used. So why is the plural version considered the preferred English name? 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 04:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thus this is the last sentence as it stands now;
"By 1300, the Papal States, along with the rest of the Italian principalities, were effectively independent. During the Renaissance the Spanish Emperors fought wars over the Papal States, often against the Pope." Wow, it seems a lot of time is ignored here! How about the Sack of Rome by Charles V, etc.?
If you are telling a story, you do not ignore so many important events! This is, of course, only my humble opinion. 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Thus we read there;
"With the Christian emperorship of Constantine I, the Church's private property grew quickly through the donations of the pious and the wealthy; the Lateran Palace was the first significant donation, a gift of Constantine himself." As historians, you must know that the reported "conversion" of Constantine is the subject of much debate, especially charges of "forged documents", etc.! But your site, gives this event if indeed it ever occured, a "fait accomli!"
Perhaps it merely should be alleged? 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Found in the "Origins" section is this;
"It would, however, be wrong to suppose that all papal claims of secular jurisdiction, taxation and service, etc. were exactly defined, or that they applied with equal force all over a large region of central Italy, or that local warlords or others readily conceded obedience to Rome. This was no modern state yet, no equivalent to the contemporary strong monarchies of France or England. Force of tradition and forceful possession counted more than written deeds of donation. –D.S. Chambers[2]
And history be damned, there does exist the real facts that until the 19th century CE, there seems to be no "real" evidence of a prior unified Italy! 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 01:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Should there be a list of the actual 'states or provinces'? Jackiespeel ( talk) 11:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Papal States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==References== The main thing that this article lacks is its significant lack of sources. Despite this it is an article of good depth and breadth. With references i see no reson why this couldnt become a GA-- Seddon69 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The origins section starts with "For its first 300 years the Catholic Church was persecuted and unrecognized, unable to hold or transfer property". Only a Catholic could write this, and in the interest of neutrality we should say that that Christians were persecuted for 300 years in this sentence, leading to the existing content about Constantine creating the Roman Catholic Church. 47.137.185.72 ( talk) 17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Just saying. Leaving flag up for now. Elinruby ( talk) 04:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
While the papal "STATES" have not existed since 1870 the Church still has a state the Vatican city a papal "STATE" singular soo that is a problem thingy 2A04:241E:202:6900:D16C:544F:39F3:C117 ( talk) 19:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Greetings fellow Wikipedians! Information from this article is likely relevant to the article Catholic Church and politics. I'm flagging this here in case anyone with time and knowledge or interest in this topic wishes to add some of this information to Catholic Church and politics, which would be greatly appreciated and help round out that article some more. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 00:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)