Jump to content

Talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thehistorian10 (talk | contribs) at 13:38, 1 February 2017 (→‎Sede vacante?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Armigerous

The article states that new Knights of Malta are "expected" to become armigerous. Please document or cite this expectation; expected by whom? What rule? They are certainly allowed to become armigerous, and the order provides for armorial addiaments--but there are many knights, particularly in the category of magistral grace, who are not armigerous.

I would anticipate the "are expected" being changed to "may" if a source is not cited.

167.80.244.204 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)chevalier3[reply]

Surely most people don't know what that word means anyway- I certainly don't.

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archive discussion

  • /Archive 1 (was an independent talk page when we had two versions of the same article)

Taken from Talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta

I'll put it here since I merged that page to this one.Przepla 23:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The official link was pointing to one, out of the four local chapters in the United states. Replaced it with the link to the official site of the order.

Hmm, oughtn't this page be merged with Knights Hospitaller? john 23:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Merge summary

I merged this article with Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Since more pages linked here than Sovereign Military Order of Malta, I decided that this page is to stay. I also changed some sections into subsections. I wrote new paragraph about government of the Order basing on their WebPage FAQ. I tried to changed what needed as to not constitute copyvio, but I might miss something. I fixed all links to point here (almost, as Micronation is protected).Przepla 23:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

International status

I cannot see what is "nebulous" there. That an area of land is extraterritorial does not mean that it is not a constituent part of the territory of Italy (in this case), it just means that Italy cannot exercise its jurisdiction there, because it is hindered to do so by international law.

This is the same status that an embassy has.

If I hear no objections here, I will rewrite that paragraph.

P.S.: What is interesting about the order is that it once _was_ a state but stopped to do so when it lost its territory (but did not stop to be a subject of international law).

JensMueller 09:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The part about the coins and stamps is outdated; there are 2004 coins on the Order's web site.

Order of Knights of the Hospital of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem

Any information about the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem?

Proposed Merger

The two new articles should not be merged with this one. They are written by representatives of Don Grady, and put forward fraudulent text from a blatantly self styled order. These two articles should be deleted rather than merged into this one.

New Picture

If someone could find the cross of Knights Hospitaller (which I believe was a white cross on a black background) or their seal and replace the portrait of the Knight at the top of the page, that would be a big improvement.

official language

for the constitution of the order http://www.orderofmalta.org/pdf/costituzione.pdf the only official language is the italian.

"La Orden de Malta y su Naturaleza Jurídica" (English translation) - detailed, expert perspective

Magaly Arocha’s paper is very detailed and nuanced. The author not only includes many arguments in favor of the proposition that SMOM sovereignty is equivalent to other States, but also argues convincingly that a claim of territory is not relevant and that the existence of extraterritoriality cannot be discounted. It pointedly addresses many of the concerns raised on this talk page. (This translation was performed by a human, not a machine.)

The Order of Malta and Its Legal Nature

http://www.analitica.com/vam/1999.05/sociedad/01.htm

Magaly Arocha, First Consul of the Consulate General of Venezuela in Naples

Some historical data

The Order of St. John was founded before the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 by the armies of the First Crusade. It began as a monastic community dedicated to San Juan Bautista, which administered a hospice-infirmary for pilgrims to the Holy Land. In the beginning it was linked to the Benedictines, and under the Blessed Gerard became an independent organization.

With the Bull of 15 February 1113, approved by Pope Paschal II, the foundation of the Hospital of St. John became an Order exempt from the Church.

The political situation after the founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, forced the Order, under its second leader (and the first to be called Master), Friar Raymond du Puy, to assume military duties for the protection of patients, pilgrims and the Christian territories that the Crusaders had recovered from the Muslims. Thus the Order of the Hospital of St. John acquired the character of an Order of Chivalry.

The Knights were all subject to the three religious vows of obedience, chastity and poverty. Thus it became a mixed person, a religious-military Order. It has two fundamental goals: serving the poor and the defense of Christianity (protection of the faith).

In 1291, Acre, the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land fell, and the Order settled temporarily in Cyprus.

The independence of the Order from any other State, under papal documents, and its right to maintain armed forces and fight wars, formed the basis of international sovereignty. With the occupation of the island of Rhodes, the Order also acquired territorial sovereignty.

Rhodes became a bastion of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The Order was ruled by the Grand Master and Council, minted its own money and maintained diplomatic relations with other States. The Grand Master was Sovereign Prince of Rhodes and then of Malta.

In December, 1522, the Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent attacked Rhodes, and the Knights were forced to capitulate, and in January 1523, they left the island. For the next seven years the Order, even though it retained its international sovereignty, was without territory until, by assignment of the Emperor Charles V (in his capacity as King of Sicily), it obtained the islands of Malta, Gozo and Comino, as well as Tripoli in North Africa, as a sovereign fiefdom.

On 26 October 1530, the Grand Master Friar Philippe de Villiers de l'Isle Adam took possession of Malta with the approval of Pope Clement VII. The Order was to remain neutral in wars between Christian nations.

In 1607 and again in 1620, the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire was united with the rank of Grand Master, and in 1630 became equal to the rank of Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church with the treatment of Eminence.

In 1798, Bonaparte, during his campaign against Egypt, occupied the island of Malta and expelled the Order. The Knights again found themselves without territorial headquarters. There followed what has been called the Russian coup (1798-1803).

The Emperor Paul I of Russia, proclaimed himself Grand Master (de facto, not de jure) through a small group of Knights, in the place of the Grand Master Friar Ferdinand von Hompesch, who had been forced to leave Malta in French hands.

This proclamation was not recognized by the Holy See (a necessary condition for legitimacy). His successor, Alexander I, however, helped the Order to return to a legitimate government in 1803; Friar Giovanni Battista Tommasi was elected Grand Master.

The British had occupied Malta in 1801 and, although the Treaty of Amiens (1802) recognized the sovereign rights of the Order on the island, it was never possible to enforce them.

Having had provisional seats in Messina, Catania and Ferrara, the Order finally in 1834 settled in Rome, where it now enjoys extraterritoriality in the Palace of Malta (at 68 Via Condotti) and the Villa of Aventine.

The Order was ruled by Lieutenants from 1805 until 1879, when Pope Leo XIII restored the Grand Master to the office of Cardinal and associated honors. The hospital work was again the main objective.

Structure of the Order

The Order of Malta, a supranational institution, without abandoning the defense of Christian ideals, their energies and resources devoted to humanitarian and social assistance, is the only religious order of the Catholic Church to be both a Catholic Order and Cavalry.

It is unique in possessing Professed Knights, called Justices, who are direct descendants of the founders of the Order and among whom is elected Grand Master and most members of the Sovereign Council.

The sovereignty of the Order is exercised by the Prince and Grand Master, who is the Chief Justice, and the Councils (the Sovereign Council, the General Chapter and the Complete Council of State).

The General Chapter is the Supreme Assembly of Knights, which normally meets every five years and elects the members of the Sovereign Council, while the Complete Council of State is convened for the purpose of electing a Grand Master or Lieutenant.

Both the General Chapter and the Complete Council of State include representatives of the Grand Priories, Priories, Sub - and National Associations, bodies to which the Order is divided in different countries.

The Grand Master receives the treatment of Eminence and Highness (or Eminent Highness) corresponding by precedence to a Cardinal, and therefore Prince of Royal Blood, as well as for the rank of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (recognized by Austria and Italy) and still reigning ex-Prince of Rhodes and later Malta, and is also internationally recognized as head of state with corresponding sovereign honors.

The Grand Master governs the Order assisted by the Sovereign Council, chaired by him and consisting of four senior officers (the Grand Commander, Grand Chancellor, the Hospitaller and Receiver of the Common Treasure), four directors and two alternate directors, all elected by the Chapter General among the Professed Knights or on exception among the Knights in Obedience.

The pope appoints as his representative a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, who has title Cardinalis Patronus; the latter is assisted by the Prelate of the Order, also appointed by the Supreme Pontiff.

The life and work of the Order are governed by the Charter, approved by the Holy See and the Code de Rohan, promulgated by the Grand Master Friar Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in the eighteenth century.

Legal issues of concern to the Order are considered by an advisory technical body called the Legal Council, appointed by the Grand Master with the consent of the Sovereign Council.

The Order has its own Courts of First Instance and Appeal. Appeals against the judgments of the second degree of the Courts of the Order may be filed with the Court of Appeals of the State of Vatican City, which in such cases acts by delegation of the Order and serves as the Supreme Court.

The Order has diplomatic relations, according to public international law, with the Holy See, which is based on the religious Order but is independent of the chivalric sovereign Order, and with 71 countries in Europe, America, Asia and Africa (data from 1996-97).

The Order accredits Representatives or Delegates in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Monaco, Germany and Greece and the European Commission. Since 1994, the Order enjoys Permanent Observer status to the United Nations and in that capacity maintains permanent delegations in New York, Geneva, Paris, Rome and Vienna.

THE "STATUS" OF THE ORDER IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Order of Malta is presented with full international legal personality. This personality is evidenced by:

  • the existence of a right of active and passive legation, of the jus contrahendi, the right to issue passports, privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Grand Master and external representative bodies,
  • the existence of an internal organization that gives life to legal entities recognized on par with foreign legal entities,
  • the existence of its own legal jurisdiction as an alternative to territorial jurisdiction or membership, and the power of conferring decorations [of diplomatic honor].

The Order occupies its own place in the scope of the international community no differently than other entities, contributing as others do to forming customary rules – States do not have a monopoly over this – although, from a purely quantitative point of view, fewer in number.

The Legal Nature of the Order

The Order in its centuries-long life is presented as independent of any State. It is not an organization or a governmental institution. It has affirmed, in Constitutions that have been produced over time, its own sovereign quality, an affirmation of great importance in assessing its independence.

The international community, through the behavior of States, has recognized the right of active and passive legation. There are few doubts expressed about the period before 1798, when the Order exercised territorial sovereignty in Malta and neighboring islands.

The problem arises in the nineteenth century, the most difficult stage for the international position of the Order, given the vacancy of the Grand Master (1805-1879), a period in which the Order was ruled by Lieutenants General.

However, the study of international relations in this period shows that the loss of possession of the Maltese archipelago did not affect the right of active and passive legation for the Order, which is legally important for checking the absolute continuity of international status regardless of the territorial possession of Malta.

One can say that there is continuity between the Order as currently structured and as recognized by the international community and the Order as it was when exercising powers deriving from territorial sovereignty.

The only differences are obviously the lack of territory and non-institutional citizens, but in this respect it should be reiterated that this condition is not a limitation of the peculiar characteristics of the Entity, as developed over time, because the exercise of territorial sovereignty was not, nor is today, one of the purposes of the Order, nor does it need a territorial basis to exercise its sovereignty. This exercise was a means to achieve its objectives, of a highly spiritual nature.

However, it is undeniable that the absence of territory deprives the Order of unquestioned independence. This peculiar situation may account for the gradualness with which States agree to diplomatic recognition, the same gradualness expressed in relation to States that are recently created or not yet very stable, but it carries no weight in framing the Order's legal nature, unless one wants to conditionally weigh the territorial element that no longer exists or one does not want to acknowledge the importance of recognition by a subset of States.

It is worth asking how one can justify afterward the continuity of international and diplomatic relations (in the nineteenth century) when during that time span, the International Community did not know other sovereign Entities distinct from the States, and moreover, the same international doctrine precluded the existence of regulatory ordinances outside of States’ legal relations.

The independence of the internal organization, always reaffirmed, was precisely the quality that legitimized the persisting international personality of the Order, admittedly with the peculiarities arising from the absence of a sovereign territory, as well as its particular relationship with the Holy See. The Order, in its entirely individual characteristic, anticipated the phenomenon of recognition by non-state Entities.

The number of States with which the Order maintained diplomatic relations increased in the twentieth century. Without doubt other Governments appreciated its work during the two world wars on behalf of war victims as well as their fight against disease and hunger, especially in Africa and Central-South America.

States recognize its sovereignty even in the absence of a territorial base and in spite of the inability [perceived by those States] in some way to set up the existence of a State for its internal organization’s independence, because they understand that full recognition of the international status of the Order and the consequent establishment of normal diplomatic relations is an indispensable tool to fulfill its mission.

The supranational structure of the organization is manifested in the existence of peripheral agencies working in the field of those national territories in which the Knights are present.

Internal sovereignty of the Order of Malta

As sovereign as the Order is in international relations, it is also in its own internal law. If one reviews the manifestations of the internal sovereignty of States, it is evident that, with the necessary adaptations, they are present in the Order of Malta.

The first element is the existence of a governing power that is not derived from any other power (non recognoscens superiorem) and is never imposed by force on its subjects.

The Order has a government constituted by the Grand Master and Sovereign Council that exercises the executive power with full autonomy in relation to members of the Order and the institutions of the latter (Priories, Sub-priories, National Associations, Delegations, Bailiwicks, Parcels).

The second element is the existence of a system of legal rules that has in itself its own justification; a part of legal doctrine that speaks to a "native legal system."

The Order of Malta has a complex legal system represented by its own Constitutional Charter, by the Code, by other laws and regulations governing the internal organization of the Order, the functioning of its institutions, the rights and duties of its members in relation to legal relationships that are constituted as a result of their membership in the Order.

The third element is the existence of a judiciary that decides the application of the rules of law in case of controversy. The Order has a judiciary made up of the existing courts before the Grand Magisterium.

The point is that the sovereignty of the Order of Malta is a historical social and political reality.

The Order maintains political and legal relationships with many of the States, meets and has played a role in the international community with full autonomy and exercises supreme power over its own members.

The legal formulas that explain its existence are:

  • the theory of a native legal system of non-state character,
  • the theory of sovereignty as a tool for religious and humanitarian purposes of the Order,
  • the theory of the existence of an international norm of jus singular that attributes sovereignty to the Order as an international subject sui generis.

Relations of the Italian State with the Order

For the purpose of studying the international position of the Order of Malta, the posture of the Italian State in whose territory, since 1870, the Grand Master of the Order is based, is very important.

Italy would be the state that would have more interest in contesting the sovereignty of the Order, because of inevitable limitations on its recognition arising from Italian sovereignty (the extraterritoriality of the Palace of Via Condotti and the Villa del Aventino in Rome, where the Grand Master and the central functions of the Order have their residence).

The sovereignty of the Order is recognized after the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy (1861) and before its union with Rome (1870). A government commission to study the knightly orders in the various Italian States concluded in 1868 that "the Order of Malta as European public law is concerned, has not ceased to be sovereign."

The question then arose regarding the implementation of the decree of 7 July 1866 (in fact until 1929, when the Concordat with the Holy See was signed) abolishing "orders, corporations and religious congregations." By decision of the State Council of 2 August 1869, application of this decree to the Order of Malta is excluded, in consideration of its particular legal status.

The decree of 28 November 1929, with diplomatic relations between Italy and the Order still not existing, established that "the representatives of the High Magisterium of the Sovereign Order of Malta, regularly accredited and expressly delegated by the Grand Master," were present at public ceremonies immediately after the Diplomatic Corps.

The international character of the Order and its sovereignty are explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court of Appeals in several judgments (from 1913 onwards). In particular the Supreme Court found that:

"The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Malta is a sovereign international subject, although deprived of territory, equivalent to a foreign state, with which Italy maintains diplomatic relations, so there is no doubt, as the Court of Appeals has already advised, that it is premised upon the legal treatment relative to foreign States and therefore also the jurisdictional exemption limits already mentioned, i. e., the activity related to the attainment of its public purposes."

In 1948 the Foreign Minister gave provisions to the Prefecture of Rome so that the Grand Master was reserved, in each circumstance, the treatment intended of foreign sovereigns.

After World War II Italian courts have reaffirmed the sovereignty of the Order, extracting all the legal results of this recognition. Thus the Court of Rome, in a June 1947 ruling, held that the Order should be equated with foreign states for the exemption of executive acts.

So, when in 1956, Italy and the Order decided to establish diplomatic relations, it was simply assumed as the logical result of a situation of well-defined and consolidated law and fact.

Relations with the Holy See

As seen, the peculiarity of the position of the Order at the international level is due in part to the absence of territory and non-institutional citizens, and in part, the bond of dependence in relation to the Holy See because of the remaining differences between canonical law and Maltese law.

In fact, special links between Maltese law and canonical law can be demonstrated, because of the decision of the Knights – autonomously organized in the institution – to impose religious rule and to place themselves under the protection of the Pope.

The Apostolic Letters show that S. S. Benedict XIV on 12 March 1753 declared the Order subject to the protection of the Apostolic See, and immune to any other jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Order of Malta has a dual legal personality: in international law and in canonical law.

The Holy See confirmed the most important sources of Law of the Order: the Constitutional Charter and the Maltese Code, to verify the religious orthodoxy, as well as approve or ratify the election of the Grand Master, treating him as an eventual religious Lieutenant Grand Master, as in the past and as provided in the Constitution.

These approvals, however, establish character but no verification nor decrease in the self-determination of the Order, because they conform to the traditional relations that were established with the Church, after the Order assumed the characteristics of a "Religion," and should consider that – until the last century – the Maltese organization being exclusively centered around the professed Knights (First Class), the need for ecclesiastic interventions was clearer.

The sovereignty of the Order led the Holy See to attribute, from the canonical point of view, a very special position of respect for the legal discipline of other religious orders.

The link with the Holy See comes from the fact – mentioned above – that some members belonging to the First Class (inside of the Order the Knights are distinguished by class, based on the nobility of blood, the issuance of religious vows or the promise of obedience (they tend to the perfection of Christian life)). Those in the First Class are Knights of Justice, who profess religious vows and Conventual Chaplains, who are ordained priests.

It is evident that not everything is about a religious profile of assuming vows, and that Maltese law is detached from canonical law, and it is clear that Knights of the First Class only depend on the Holy See within the limits and with respect to the profession of vows.

The Constitution and the Code of the Order include numerous rules of Special Canon Law, which, by repealing Common Canon Law or citing it, discipline the obligations of a canonical nature of the members of the Order, especially those providing religious vows. Under this profile the approval by the Holy See of the Constitution and the Maltese Code was necessary.

The link between the two Entities does not preclude a wide sphere of autonomy of the Order, within which it has the possibility of sovereign self-determination, arising autonomously in its relations with other States, in view of its own institutional purposes.

In international relations, it is ruled out that the Order act in the name and interest of the Holy See, but it is true that the dependent relationship is presented to the outside in the form of "protection" as several historical circumstances demonstrate.

This situation of "dependency," or alleged limitations on the sovereignty of the Order, is not derived from constitutional law or international law, but has its origin in the nature of religious order assumed by the Institution, by the professed vows by the highest ranks of the Order – as noted – and for typically persecuted Christian purposes."

The Grand Master of the Order of Malta is unique among the heads of religious orders in that he has a right to the title of Eminence and to the honors for the Cardinals.

The Order of Malta is the only religious order that has a representative of the Pope, who must be a Cardinal (Cardinalis Patronus), with "the task of promoting the spiritual interests of the Order and its members and to foster relationships between the Holy See and the Order itself."

But in the aspect of religious order, the Order has a particular position, different from that of other religious orders, so much so that even the religious aspect is covered by the Order of Malta in its own legal rules (Constitutional Charter and Code) and, only via an extra channel to establish it, under the Canonical Law.

If we study the issues of a religious nature that the Order has over its sovereignty, it must be noted that such sovereignty has never been put into question by the Holy See and has instead been reaffirmed in the most solemn ways.

The Holy See accepted a diplomatic mission of the Order until 1834 and from 1930 onwards; in the interim period diplomatic relations were suspended simply because, with the Grand Master based in Rome, the existence of a legation in the same city seemed useless.

On 30 October 1921, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, in his capacity as Secretary of State, declared that:

"The Holy See recognizes the Order of Malta as an independent international order with sovereign privileges."

The Order cannot be mistaken for a religious-monastic order, either by the presence of lay members or by the absence of a requirement of common life, which is one of the most typical monastic characteristics.

In this regard, we should recall that in December 1951 a controversy arose that originated in the pretense of the Sacred Religious Convention to monitor and investigate the institution of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem as a common religious order.

In these circumstances, the Grand Master made use of ancient prerogatives that claimed the privilege of the Order of not recognizing "another bishop as superior that was not the Pope" and filed a request directly to the Pope asking for a trial, which was conducted by a Tribunal of Special Cardinals instituted by Pius XII.

In the judgment of 24 January 1953, relations between the Holy See and the Order were defined and the characteristics of "sovereign" and "religious" determined, as well as respective areas of competence.

About the "Nature of the quality of religious rule of the Order," the statement said that "the Jerosomilitana Order of Malta, as composed by the Knights and Chaplains, is a Religion and more precisely a religious order, approved by the Holy See;" it further stated that "the decorations of the Order and their associations depend on it ..."

On 12 March 1953, the Order informed the Secretary of State, through diplomatic channels, of the acceptance of the judgment "conditioned" on the acceptance of a "specific interpretation" in three points, of which the second affirmed that "the religious nature of the Order is limited to the professed Knights and Chaplains who compose it," and that the judgment precluded any interference by the Secretary of State in the diplomatic activity of the Order. The Holy See communicated as always through diplomatic channels, it "has taken note."

"Taking note," without rejecting or contradicting the proposed interpretation, has meant the improvement "of an international interpretative agreement, reached by the parties concerned, on some controversial points, setting a definite position."

However, the most solemn reaffirmations of the sovereignty of the Order are contained in the Constitutional Charter approved by S.S. John XXIII on 24 June 1961. Article 1 affirms that "the Order is a legal entity formally approved by the Holy See. It has the quality of a subject of international law."

Article 3 states that "the intimate connection existing between the two qualities of a religious order and a sovereign order do not oppose the autonomy of the order in the exercise of its sovereignty and prerogatives inherent to it as a subject of international law in relation to States."

It also provides for a diplomatic mission of the Order to the Holy See and the appointment of the Cardinalis Patronus. It further provides (Article 12) that "the Grand Master is the Supreme Commander of the Order. Incumbent upon him are special prerogatives and sovereign honors under the rules in force."

In short, the current situation is no different – in law – from what has been consolidated historically, so that one cannot assert the non-existence of a sphere of self-determination of the Order in its relations with any State, nor may one assert the right of interference of the Holy See in international affairs of an institutional character, because the protection afforded by the Holy See to the Order does not mean protectorate, nor can one speak of allegiance.

The distinction between Vatican diplomacy and diplomacy of the Order is so clear that in none of the States with which the Order has diplomatic relations, is the representation of the latter entrusted to the Apostolic Diplomatic Missions. The Holy See is not involved in any way in the international conventions of the Order.

From the point of view of internal organization, there is no interference of the Holy See in the elections and appointments to the offices of the Order, unless canonical dispensation (permission) is needed, in some cases, for the appointment of non-professed Knights to offices for which the Constitution of the Order requires them to be professed.

The Prince Grand Master is also head of a religious order and as such, his election ought to be confirmed by the Apostolic See.

The Order of Malta, within the limits that are compatible with its actual position as a subject deprived of territory, is in the international community, a sovereign entity on par with the States, and the Prince Grand Master is comparable, from the point of view of international law, to the Heads of State.

This report is based on the book written by Prof. Aldo Pezzana entitled, Il Fondamento giuridico e storico della sovranita 'dell'Ordine Gerosomilitano di Malta, 37 pages, and the books by Prof. and Attorney Francesco Gazzoni entitled, L'Ordine di Malta, Milan, 1979, 137 pages; A. Pecchioli, Storia dei Cavalieri di Malta, Editalia, Rome, 1978, 125 pages; and in the Annuarie, 1996/1997, Oedre Souverain Militaire Hospitalier de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem de Rhodes et de Malte, Rome, 1996, 142 pages ("Feast of the Patron of the Order, San Juan Bautista," Annuarie, 1996/1997, Oedre Souverain Militaire Hospitalier de Saint-Jean of Jerusalem de Rhodes et de Malte, p.21-23).

It is worth remembering that accredited Maltese representatives to the States enjoy immunities and privileges not as international officials, but rather in their capacity as diplomatic officials, with the rank of Ambassador or Minister plenipotentiary. On the one hand, the clear territorial separation of sovereign areas that exists between the Italian State and the State of Vatican City does not exist between the Order of Malta and the Italian State, but neither can it be said that the treatment given to the headquarters of the Order (Aventine, Via Condotti) is, simply, that reserved for the headquarters of diplomatic missions accredited to the Italian State.

In fact, the headquarters of the Order have diplomatic extraterritoriality (authoritarian acts of any kind – executive, acts of inspection, judicial – cannot take place inside), but in addition, the Italian State recognizes the exercise, in the headquarters, of the prerogatives of sovereignty. This means that Italian sovereignty and Maltese sovereignty coexist without overlapping, because the Order exercises sovereign functions in a wider area than occurs in the diplomatic missions of the States for, although [those diplomatic missions] enjoy extraterritoriality, the guarantees deriving from the privilege of immunity are constrained to a purely administrative area; the Order, instead, makes use of extraterritoriality to meet the very acts of sovereign self-determination that are the same as the States (legislative, judicial, administrative, financial acts).

(end of paper)

Jeff in CA 18:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Archived internet source here. Jeff in CA (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies, reason for eviction from Malta and relationship with Islam etc.

This article seems a bit complementary and tame to me. However wonderful these caring knights are today, I have the vague understanding that they were more or less pirates on Malta, which is why Napoleon dumped them out, much to the pleasure of oppressed maltese- no? They still have the word Military in their title, which must presumably make the average islamic state at least cautious in dealing with them. I realise that with all these different Orders and splinters around it must be difficult, but surely the article is not very balanced without a glimpse of controversy? IceDragon64 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a dozen centuries or so, someone might have done something wrong, but I think the topic is fairly presented. It did pass GA at one time, I think.
Napoleon was just trying to conquer the world, of which Malta was a part. He also hated the pope (and organized religion of any sort), and SMOM was definitely pro-pope and therefore presented a convenient target. This has more to do with Napoleon than SMOM itself IMO.
I don't know about their Muslim relationships, but the Arab states (for example) are not so naive politically that an ancinet name means anything particularly. Arabs have Red Crescent which is usually correlated to Red Cross, but could correlate to SMOM as well. Student7 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Espine ?

Security company with police powers <Gial.be> blocking online contacts (twitter / email / Facebook) with the Order of Malta. Jeopardize contacts with the Order of Malta, the securite /safety Brussels City? Militant Espine? Officer jaque (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1048 doesn't make sense, the stated founder would have been 8 years old

"founded circa 1048 in Jerusalem, Kingdom of Jerusalem, by Gerard Thom"

1048 can't be right. Thom was born in 1040, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem wasn't founded until 1099. -- Kendrick7talk 00:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What else is considered sovereign under international law

It says that the Military order of Malta is considered sovereign under international law, what other organizations or groups are considered sovereign under international law? Where is there a list on wikipedia of such organizations? DopeyBoB (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense of a nation which persists, despite no longer holding its territory? The Central Tibetan Administration comes to mind, although they are not recognized by the UN, rather being part of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. The Knights of Malta are fairly unique as they have no plans to actually retake Malta. Perhaps similar aid organizations such as the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc. are likewise considered sovereign? -- Kendrick7talk 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Grand Master under his photo

The Title of the Grand Master under his photo here should not be "Sir" but "H.M.E.H. Fra Matthew Festing" meaning "His Most Eminent Highness" since this is the historic style of the Grand Master of the Order derived from in part from the Holy Roman Emperor and in part from the fact that the Grand Master is the only layman in the Roman Catholic Church that holds the rank of a cardinal and ranking below a cardinal in precedence. This should be corrected by a more experienced user. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JustTryintobeJust: I just figured it out - you've got to edit the (sub-)paragraph into which the picture-frame is inserted. Also it seems that his correct title would be "H.M.E.H. Fra' Matthew Festing", with an aphostrophe following the "Fra". I used however instead of "H.M.E.H." the longer version "His Most Eminent Highness", since some readers (like me untill now) might not know what the abbreviation stands for. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I also guess Fra' stands for "frater" in latin, like Bro' for "brother".80.98.114.70 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CStJ should not be redirected here. There is an ERROR in Wikipedia doing so. Two separate Orders have been confused here

CStJ refers to a Commander of the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) and should be redirected to that page as well as any other of its post-nominals. It was chartered by Queen Victoria and is not to be confused with this lay Catholic Order Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The Order of Saint John is responsible for the St. John's Ambulance Brigade etc around the world and is the British Order referred to by this post nominal.

See both different Wikipedia pages for full explanation of the different Orders. The British Order to which the decoration post nominal CStJ etc applies is Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) - details can be found on the post nominals in that entry - but It has been confused and erroneously redirects to the Catholic lay order Sovereign Military Order of Malta. They are two entirely different Orders.

The names are easily confused but this needs clarifying.

Dear Editor can you kindly correct this mistaken redirect to correctly at the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) from, the incorrect re-direct to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta ? I imagine both Orders and any confused readers would be grateful.

Many thanks. All of you do a wonderful and much appreciated work.

William Macadam (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus does not indicate the new proposed name is an acceptable target.(non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Sovereign Military Order of Malta → Order of Malta – Per WP:Common. Reflected in equivalent articles in other languages. Also according to own preference, see for instance: https://www.orderofmalta.int/. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, both the full name and its acronym should be kept in the lead section. Chicbyaccident (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sovereign Military Order of Malta is the clearest and most accurate term. There are other organisations which call themselves the Order of Malta (or some such variant). What distinguishes this organisation is that it is called the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious - The proposal says the new name is "Reflected in equivalent articles in other languages." I haven't done a full survey, but looking just at the languages I know I find no consistent pattern, including these four variations: French (Ordre souverain militaire hospitalier de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, de Rhodes et de Malte), German (Souveräner Malteserorden), Italian (Sovrano militare ordine di Malta), Spanish (Orden de Malta). Each of those is different. I don't think we can look for guidance there. Note as well the Maltese: Ordni Militari Sovran ta' Malta. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Generally known by its full name and not as the Order of Malta. Its own website is inconsistent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

little fib?

According to an Associated Press story (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_VATICAN_KNIGHTS_OF_MALTA?SITE=AP) former archbishop of St. Louis Cardinal Raymond Burke (sort of) and ex-leader Festing (definitely) told Boeselager that the Pope wanted him to resign. The Pope said that he had not done that. Raymond Burke is presently Cardinal to the Knights of Malta, which seems not to be mentioned in the article. Motivations for animosities aren't hard to figure, but BLP rules apply, I suppose. Just the facts, please. 173.20.148.109 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be less than civil discussing this. And BLP is no issue here, and Burke's role vis-à-vis the Order is mentioned elsewhere in the entry. It takes time to tell the full story and I've just started on this affair. It actually all goes back to a meeting between Francis and Burke in November, which incidentally makes the Order's claim than this is an internal affair untenable. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's coming along nicely. BLP is never not a concern, you know, if living people are subjects, but I hear your expectation that BLP will stay out. - 173.20.148.109 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Several senior officials of the Order questioned ... and called for ...."

The source for this is the Tablet, which does not itself give any source. I suggest the article should have something like "it has been claimed that" or "According to the Tablet" to clarify that this is not being presented as a fact, but a claim reported by a third party. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our source is Lamb, writing in The Tablet. That's a sufficient source. If he said "anonymous sources tell me" or "my sources" or "sources I'm not going to reveal" that would more explicit on his part, but still good enough for us, because he and The Tablet are a reliable source even when he/they do not specify the sources for their information. In fact, Lamb provides one source, a letter from the Procurator of the Grand Priory of Bohemia, which does not mince words. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at ITN

-Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would take considerable work to make this a quality entry. And the "news" moment has passed, no? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is not a news ticker. As long as the nomination is not stale, i.e. older than the oldest currently posted blurb, then it's still possible. However, I do agree that there will need to be improvements. Referencing in particular needs work. But there is support for the nomination in principle at ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed

Someone suggested the Festing resignation be made a separate WP entry, but didn't suggest a name for that new entry and hasn't started a discussion. I've just done the admin work to support that suggestion. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the admin work. I'm not the best person to suggest something here, but possibly something like "Vatican–Order of Malta contraceptive dispute". Banedon (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sede vacante?

I have trouble with the notion that the infobox says that the office of Prince is "sede vacante". The Constitution and Code don't refer to the notion of sede vacante after the Prince's death or resignation. All it says is that if such resignation, death or incapacity occurs, the Lieutenant ad interim steps in until the Council Complete of State elects a new Prince and Grand Master. Additionally, he's not a priest or other holy figure, so he doesn't occupy a holy "seat" as a bishop or Pope. --The Historian (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta&oldid=763129319"