June 28, 1914. The Austrian (Catholic) Archduke Francois Ferdinand is assassinated in Sarajevo. This is June 28, 1914, the beginning of the First World War. The crime is committed by a Macedonian student, not a Serb, but Austria has her reason for starting a war and, in the process, re-establishing papal power.

Although outwardly I detest the escalating conflict, there are other papal comments heard behind the scenes from the Papal Secretary of State:

“It would have been impossible to detect any spirit of indulgence and conciliation in His Eminence’s words. It is true that he described the note to Serbia (from Austria, a threat to give in to all its demands, or else) as very harsh, but nevertheless he fully approved of it and, at the same time and indirectly, expressed the wish that the Monarchy will finish the job. Indeed, the cardinal added, it was a pity that Serbia had not been humiliated much earlier… (Paris, op.cit., p.118)

The Pope of the day promises absolute impartiality. Publicly it would seem that he kept this promise. But he looks again. Catholic Austria is hitting Orthodox Serbia.

I ask you to consider, in light of everything I have shared so far, do you think it is possible that the Roman Pontiff, wishing to attack “orthodoxy” and other traditional enemies, could unleash the horror of a world war on the Nations? Or is he simply riding the sure winner – or so he thinks – the “beast” of the day, to victory and subsequent expansion of power? The answer to such a question is academic and will be questioned for some time. But what cannot be denied is the intricate linkage of the War with the Holy See as it maneuvers its will through Austria, Hungary and Germany.

Paris documents what would appear to be contradictions in the Pope’s “neutrality.” He affirms that the Pope made public “prayers for peace”, just when Germany was about to be defeated (January 1915), that the Pope hindered food supplies, dissuaded neutrals from joining the Allies, and was perhaps involved in the poisoning of the Vatican’s neutral Secretary of State.

Wow, there seems to be no light at the end of this Babylonian tunnel.

I must say that a close reading of a short history of the First World War from a secular source puts a very different spin on things, not even mentioning the Pope, and emphasizing Germany. Fair. And there are other factors that could be emphasized, depending on the author’s world view. Let me suggest that a careful combination of all these assorted causes is legitimate, as long as the following are kept in mind:

1) The Vatican has been aware of world power since it inherited the throne from Caesar.

2) Austria-Hungary and the Habsburg Rulers are the main ally of Rome in 1914.

3) Germany, although it has its Lutheran element, is still strongly Catholic to this day.

4) There is nothing Papal Rome would have enjoyed more than the re-empowerment of Central Europe, traditionally the fortress from which the Pope rules.

5) Both the sentiments for and against the war of the Popes can be documented.

Knowing these things, readers can work out the rest with the historians.