But he only uses papal
Some context: Leo XIII was Pope from 1878 till 1903. Italian forrays into Ethiopia started 1887, with a complicated war, in which Italy gained Eritrea.
What if Leo XIII was suspicious of what the Italians had in plan for Ethiopia and enacted an edict, which would make the Catholic Church shun any atempt at colonizing Ethiopia, calling them sinful?
-
Would the Italians still try to colonize Ethiopia?
-
How will this change the relationship between Italy and the Vatican?
-
What are the consequences for the Pope?
https://preview.redd.it/iv0a1mcafw141.png?width=724&format=png&auto=webp&s=f8ad2cc79484eab8d83c33dd751d6dfc6319297f
Pope Leo XIII, in Encyclical Libertas said on liberty of speech and liberty of the press:
>23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which - as We have before said and must again and again repeat - it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known.
[http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html](http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/h
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Shouldnβt the excommunication have been halted, since Humbert was granted special powers by Leo, and when Leo died the authority he had given Humbert was now invalid? How did this all spiral out of control into the longest Christian Schism??
I'm not all that well-versed in the specifics of the relations of the Rome papacy and the Byzantines/Constantinople other than what was taught at university. The Great Schism, and thus the break of Communion between Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches, didn't happen until 1054. So would this mean that the Pope was under the "authority" of the Byzantine emperor as the Patriarchs were, or did the Pope have a level of autonomy to rule over the Papal States as a sort of independent figure. If any of these, did the Pope have the legal/reserved authority to crown Charlemagne as Emperor, or would that not have been allowed since the Byzantine emperors and empire saw themselves as the continuation of Rome and the Roman emperors
I hope this question makes sense. It's more of a topic of legality that I couldn't seem to have found and am curious if Pope Leo III had legal justification
