[Adm.Lee]

IMO, despite being a loyal Catholic, you guys are overestimating the pro-Vatican politics of the Italians. I've not read a lot of it, but Italy as a modern state formed over the strong protests of the Pope. The original royal government was rather anti-Church, at least as a government. I don't think it was until the 1920s that the treaties establishing the Vatican City were in place.

Aside from that, I think Avignon is perhaps the *last* city in Europe that a Pope would flee to, even if Rome were nuked. The 2 or 3 popes that were in Avignon centuries ago were/are considered "anti-popes" under the thumb of the French king, while other popes were in place in the Vatican. {At one time, there were three popes, due to rivalries among the College of Cardinals.} I really don't think anyone wants to resurrect that specter. Having to flee the Vatican would be bad enough, but to open oneself to the appearance of a new schism would be worse.

In fact, I could easily see at least one new antipope electing himself, in the case of a Roman nuking-- which I find really, really unlikely by NATO.

Then-Pope John Paul II sneaking out to Poland, in the case of anti-clerical Italian government clamping down on things-- maybe. Switzerland or Spain seem possible as temporary havens, but staying put seems much more like him. While I have no doubt that by moving to Poland, he could be recognized as a ruler of that country, I cannot see him more or less abandoning the Church to take up a temporal realm.

How much of Church communications are working in 2000 is another open question. They don't have their own phone lines, but re-opening a messenger service seems quite likely. Given Europe's decreasing number of clergy and lay members since Vatican II, I'm not sure how much they would have to work with. Behind the Iron Curtain, there would be some strong influence, but it would depend on leadership in place.