The embassy isn’t to the Church per se but to the Vatican City State, which is all that is left of the Papal States—109 acres that are a sovereign nation, and not part of Italy. It is much diminished, but the nation has existed in one way or another for 1257 years (see my post 35 above). If the head of another denomination also happened to be head of a state, it would make sense to have an ambassador to that state.
The Pope does pack some additional punch as well, usually being well-respected, the spiritual leader of more than a billion, and alleged to have good connections on high, all of which are reasons to give more weight to the position than to ambassadorships to other very small states.
“The embassy isn’t to the Church per se but to the Vatican City State, which is all that is left of the Papal States—109 acres that are a sovereign nation, and not part of Italy. It is much diminished, but the nation has existed in one way or another for 1257 years (see my post 35 above). If the head of another denomination also happened to be head of a state, it would make sense to have an ambassador to that state.”
Fictional non-rational excuses. Fictional in how the tiny remnant of land comprising Vatican City because of the deal the Italian government made with the Roman Catholic Church, and leaving scrap of sovereignty to that tiny spot of land is not - at this point in civilized history - a rational reason for an American embassy there and that is in fact ONLY an excuse, and NOT a cause or a reason. IT IS IN FACT an embassy to the Roman Catholic Church, and it should not be so, as we have no “embassy” to any other Church denomination. I am not being “discriminatory” to Roman Catholics in saying that. It is being “discriminatory” to all other faiths and Churches to have an American embassy to Roman Catholics.