The funny thing about all this is I was asking something I knew very little on. I was taught in my Protestant days that the RCC used their army aggreesively against other nations as though it were some elite force used primarly for Papal muscle. The Orthodox used their Imperial Army of the East for defense. This is what I was taught from Baptists. As for its accuracy, there is no backing to these claims.
Sorry, the papal army was never an elite force. Frankly, it was generally be hard-pressed to defend itself, and the Pope frequently had to appeal to Lombards, Franks, Normans, Germans, and diverse other countries to defend him. And the Byzantine Army was decidedly not a defensive army. Why did they occupy Italy, North Africa, and Spain during the reign of Justinian? Why did they reconquer Syria from the Muslims? Not saying that they shouldn't have (in fact if I were alive then I'd sign up for the campaign) but they were hardly a defense-only military force. If you want to know more, a general history of the Byzantine or Russian empire (to name two such Orthodox powers) should be on your reading list.
I read a small article regarding the stance of the Vatican Army today, which consists of Swiss guards for defense of the Vatican(funny guys in pajamas) and the supposed Knights of Columbus Army which is world-wide. As to the claims of this article, the Pope can call up the Knights of Columbus at any time and they will be a force. Is this true? (the article is lost as is my PC history)
Sorry, this is completely untrue. Of course, the Swiss Guards exist. It has 134 soldiers and is again basically a ceremonial and executive protection unit. The defense of the Vatican is in the hands of the Italian Army. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard
As for the KOC, the best place to look for info on them is:http://www.kofc.org/un/about/index.cfm
As far as I know, they're an international charitable organization. I've never heard anything about them defending the Vatican; frankly the majority that I know would not be fit to serve in the US Army under current regulations.
So I asked this question regarding why there needs to be an army. Has there been any Papal bullying with an army in the past and not just defensive purposes?
Has the US, Byzantine, Russian or any other army "bullied any one and not just for defensive purposes" in the past? A definition of "bullying" often depends on who you ask. I don't know if every single war the papal army fought can be labeled "defensive". If you really want to know, I'd look at a general history of Catholicism (e.g. Warren Caroll's books; however he's a traditionalist type RC and you should read him with a grain of salt). Stick with the facts they put out (and ont the conclusions) and come to your own conclusions. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any dedicated, "neutral" military history of the Papal Army from the 700s to the 1800s.