Talk:Vatican City

Extra-territorial property of the Holy See

The following statement is not correct: In addition to Vatican City the State includes certain extra-territorial properties in Italy belonging to the Holy See (Major Basilicas, Curial and diocesan offices, Castel Gandolfo). Reason: According to the Lateran Treaties these extra-territorial properties are part of the Italian territory. It "happens" to be that the Holy See has the authority over the State of the Vatican City AND has extra-territorial property. But that does not mean that the State itself includes theses properties. 143.50.212.194 16:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If no one minds I reformulate the statement in the article. Gugganij 19:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sports in the Vatican

Someone might make use of this article: sports in the vatican Rhymeless 07:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why Vatican City is not a UN member?

Some clarification on this issue? If the Vatican City authorities insist that they are a state, then why do they not become FULL UN members (as ANY OTHER state, including Switzerland) - they stay only as "observer". Similar is the case with other organizations - why they are only observer to the Council of Europe and not a FULL member? WTO is another example of semi-membership.

I think it was previously impossible to be a full member without providing military support for U.N. Peace-keeping missions. That rule was bent for Switzerland, IIRC. Mpolo 11:55, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

OK, even if so (I doubt the existence of such rule, but anyway), then when now it is bent, Vatican City has the possiblity to became full member. The question is what are the reasons that don't they use it?

Well, the Vatican City is NOT even an observer to the UN, it is the Holy See, which has to be distinguished. The Vatican City is a internationally recognized state, the Holy See however is a different subject of international law (it is sovereign but NOT a country). The question of statehood is not decided by membership to UN (Switzerland became a full member of the UN just a couple of years ago). Gugganij 17:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I found a relatively recent article explaining this.

Vatican's Role at UN Expanded

7/17/04

In a development that is sure to distress pro-abortion groups such as "Catholics" for a Free Choice (CFFC), the General Assembly (GA) of the United Nations last week decided unanimously to confirm and expand the status of the Vatican at the United Nations. CFFC and its allies, including International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International, have been engaged in a multi-year campaign to have the Vatican ousted from the UN, a campaign that now seems dead and buried.

The GA document adopted last week was the first major clarification of the prerogatives of the Vatican as "permanent observer state," which has held this status at the UN since 1964. Not only did the General Assembly endorse the long-standing role of the Vatican, it decided to grant it new privileges, "in order to enable the Holy See to participate in a more constructive way in the Assembly's activities," according to a UN press release.

Perhaps most importantly, the Holy See will now possess the right to participate in the general debate of the GA, the right to circulate documents and the right to reply in debates. One diplomat told C-FAM that the Holy See's status could now be likened to a "full member state, just without the vote."

According to Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's Permanent Observer to the UN, the Holy See sought this enhanced Observer status so that it could remain neutral, asserting that, "We have no vote because this is our choice." At the same time, Archbishop Migliore emphasized that the decision "is a fundamental step that does not close any path for the future. The Holy See has the requirements defined by the UN statute to be a member state and, if in the future it wished to be so, this resolution would not impede it from requesting it."

No country dissented to the GA decision. The GA President Julian Robert Hunte, Saint Lucia's Minister for External Affairs, took a personal interest in the Holy See's draft resolution, and introduced the document to the GA as his own text, which represents a highly unusual show of support.

After the decision, Archbishop Migliore proclaimed that it "marked an important step forward, and reflects the lofty values and collective interests shared by the Holy See and the United Nations. We are committed to the same objectives that necessitate the protection of fundamental human rights, the preservation of the dignity and worth of the human person and the promotion of the common good." He concluded that he looked forward to "an ordered international community built upon the strong edifice of law — a law not of whim and caprice, but of principles stemming from the very universality of human nature."

The GA decision appears to represent a significant fundraising setback for CFFC. CFFC president Frances Kissling, who usually seeks out the media spotlight, has yet to comment publicly on the decision. The "See Change Campaign" for the Vatican's removal, however, remains prominently displayed on the CFFC website.

(This article from Catholic Family and Human Institute. [1])

So, the Holy See simply chooses to participate without a vote. Mpolo 17:25, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

It looks like a double bonus for the Vatican - they get exactly what they want, despite the rules ("We don't have voting right, becouse WE choose so"), they get much more priviledges (rights, reserved for states) than other religious entities AND they don't get all obligations that member states have (full membership fees, conditions for participation in other organizations like WTO - trade memorandum, etc.). And about "we don't want to vote, becouse we keep neutrality" - they can preserve neutrality like the other states - vote "abstain".

There is a difference between chosing not to have voting power and always voting "abstain". The latter shows neutrality in the past and presence, the former shows neutrality for the future.

Santa Sede

On top of the table there was the (italian) name for the Holy See (Santa Sede). This is not correct, the Holy See and Vatican-City are two different entities, therefore I deleted it. --Gugganij 23:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Language

1.Is it sure that all guards speak German? In Switzerland French and Italian are also used... 2.Latin is maybe the offical language, but c'mon - are they REALY using it at a day-to-day basis? This issue should be clarified - maybe something like "Offical language is Latin, but de facto the mostly used is Italian. The Switzerland guards speak also German and French". And also - is Italian offical too, or not?

Well, as far as I know the official language of the Swiss guard is just German. But I assume that most guards speak the other languages of Switzerland as well. Gugganij 00:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The official language of the Swiss Guard is German, but they must also speak Italian (and I think English as well). The "official" language of the Vatican is Latin, but Italian has all but replaced it in day-to-day life. (The ATM still has the option of Latin, though. A few years ago, it was only in Latin. Someone reprogrammed it to be four modern languages, and the priest in charge of care for the Latin language insisted that it be made 5-language, with Latin as the default option.) When a bishop chooses to speak in Latin at a Synod (as Cardinal Re and a bishop from Lithuania, I believe, did recently), there is generally a scramble for the earphones for simultaneous translation. Mpolo 10:57, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

featured article nomination

I think that before this article gets this status most of the comments from the talk page should be represented somehow on the main page...

Discrepancy in the wiki

The side box lists Vatican City as the 193 in the list of countries by population. However on that page is isn't even mentioned. What to do about this? Jackliddle 17:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its now mentioned in the list and I have corrected the side box Jackliddle 21:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who's in charge?

Pope John Paul II is dead, therefore the Sovereign is vacant. There is no Secretary of State since Angelo Cardinal Sodano lost his position the moment the Pope died. (Alphaboi867 20:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I believe that the Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church acts as head of state of the Vatican until a successor is elected. But I am not sure of this - the article states that he is not head of the church itself, or in charge of the Holy See. But the Vatican is separate. does anybody know? john k 21:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article now says that the secretary of state and the president of the Commission lost their posts but that they're running things by virtue of their former posts? That makes no sense at all. Please provide concrete evidence that they lost office. NoPuzzleStranger 23:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subparagraph 13(c) of Universi Dominici Gregis establishes a commission made up of, "the Cardinal Camerlengo and the Cardinals who had formerly held the offices of Secretary of State and President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State". The commission is charged with several things, including setting up the election, carrying out any instructions left by the old pope, paying the Vatican's bills, etc. Gentgeen 23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I see those are new regulations - it hasn't been that way in any previous vacancy. NoPuzzleStranger 00:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vatican a Christocracy

User:ABCD why are you trying to suppress the view of the vatican and millions of catholics the world over without discussion? Are you perhaps an Anti-Papist? If so I can understand how much this perspective must disgust you, but we must not let our pesonal feelings allow us to override our journalistic reportage. Our job is simply to report. The fact is millions of catholics believe what I had inserted i.e. that Christ is the head of the Vatican State (the homeland of the Catholic Church) and the Pope is simply Christ's Majordomo. At least wait until the 9 days of mourning is over before suppressing it as a sign of respect for those who hold this view. You can at least do that can't you?81.158.104.155 21:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:ABCD. According to the [Fundamental Law of the State of Vatican City] Paragraph 1.1, 'Der Papst besitzt als Oberhaupt des Vatikanstaates die Fülle der gesetzgebenden, ausführenden und richterlichen Gewalt.'[2], in Italian, 'Il Sommo Pontefice, Sovrano dello Stato della Città del Vaticano, ha la pienezza dei poteri legislativo, esecutivo e giudiziario.'[3]. The Pope is Oberhaupt and Sovrano. I would say he's Sovereign in English. Reverting. Tobyox 21:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

One might further add that historically, any country that claimed "divine right of kings" could be claimed to be a "Christocracy" under this ridiculous reading. john k 22:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To John K. I don't see how the divine right of kings can be interpreted as holding the keys given Peter. Anyway, ridiculous as the reading sounds it is still a valid view held by millions. 81.158.104.155 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Toybox. To assume two words in different languages with the same root from hundreds and hundreds of years ago have the same meaning is a mistake, but yes a Majordomo is a kind of sovereign but not a King and the Monarch is really Christ, with the pope as prime minister in the place of Peter. The point is that the Pope is simply Majordomo over the house of the king. There is not a catholic alive who could say otherwise (i.e. The Pope is King). 81.158.104.155 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's Tobyox, btw. The OED's first definition of 'sovereign' is 'One who has supremacy or rank above, or authority over, others; a superior; a ruler, governor, lord, or master (of persons, etc.).' It should be clear from the law mentioned above that the Pope exercises all sovereign authorities in the Vatican City State - legislative, judicial, and executive. 'Sovereign' does not equal 'King'. There is no mention of Christ in the law itself, only in the dating of it. 'Majordomo means', again according to the OED, 'The chief official of an Italian or Spanish princely household. Subsequently also (in accordance with later Italian and Spanish use): the head servant of a wealthy household in a foreign country; a house-steward, a butler.' The person closest to this description in the Vatican is the Cardinal Camerlengo. My point is not that 'Oberhaupt' and 'Sovrano' have the same origins (that would be linguistically difficult for 'Oberhaupt', anyway), but that they signify the same authority as 'sovereign' does in English. Your suggestion that User:ABCD is an 'Anti-Papist' is a breach of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, btw. Tobyox 13:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

To anyone who cares. It is a pity that yet again wikipaedians choose to censor a legitimate and harmless/peaceful POV rather than report it. Yet I am sure if I were to say some people think Jesus was probably a bastard the same wikipaedians would defend the reportage of such a polemic POV. The bias is disgraceful.81.158.104.155 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm Catholic and have never heard the head of Vatican City described as Christ. The head of the Church, yes, but of Vatican City? Bizarre. User:81.158.104.155, can you point to any references at all to Christ as sovereign of a city-state? -Ben 03:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you ok? http://www.georgefox.edu/discernment/petrine.pdf

Well, at which part of the document are you exactely referring to? I cannot find anything backing the assumption that Christ is regarded by the Catholic church to be the head of the Vatican City state. Gugganij 00:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And what bearing does a paper about ecumenism by a Quaker professor that never even mentions Vatican City have on this discussion? -Ben 02:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User 81.158.104.155 keeps on claiming that the idea that Christ is the head of state of the Vatican is a "valid view held by millions." He has yet to cite a source for this rather unlikely claim. Until he does so, I see no reason to discuss this further. john k 03:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Date of independence

Three dates of independence are given, among which 1990-10-03. I can't find why this date is given as a date of independence. A reference to the Lateran treaties is given, but there I don't see any reference to 1990. Suspiciously, 1990-10-03 is also the date of German reunification... Anyone knows what's going on? - 81.83.81.57 09:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vatican Coat of Arms

On the death of a Pope, the coat of arms changes temporarily until the conclave elects a new Pope, the mitre being replaced with a closed parasol - there is a graphic of this available on Wikipedia, but it's in black and white and rather low quality. So, a couple of thoughts ; do we change the coat of arms on this page for the few days until the conclave finishes its business - and if so, where can we get hold of a good quality colour image of the current coat of arms. The Vatican's website has one, but I dare say it's probably copyrighted. - Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the Vatican City State's coat change? I know the Holy See's does. Can anybody verify this? Pmadrid 23:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does not change. --Gerald Farinas 03:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My bad. - Zaphod Beeblebrox 10:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

French an official language?

I have never heard that French is an official language of the Vatican City. Where is it documented? 85.124.40.194 10:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe somebody thought that because the delegates to Pope John Paul II's funeral were seated by the French spelling of their country it was an official language. Which of course it isn't; French is only the traditional language of diplomacy. (Alphaboi867 18:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Well, that's what I thought as well. I am going to remove it. 85.124.40.194 21:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vatican mail

Is the following statement really true? Vatican and Italian stamps can be used interchangibly. As far as I know Vatican stamps can just be used inside the Vatican city and on extraterritorial property of the Holy See but NOT in Italy. Gugganij 12:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As the person who added that, I have to admit that I'm not certain on it; I'll take it out. I'm reasonably sure that Italian stamps are good in Vatican mailboxes, which is what I was trying to say.

It is true that the Vatican mail has a better reputation than the Italian mail, especially for international letters. I stayed for three weeks at the American Academy in Rome; it was considered polite to put up a note in the lobby if you were planning on going to the Vatican the next day so that people could give you their letters to drop in the Vatican mailbox. --Jfruh 17:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't doubt at all that the reputation of the Vatican postal system is far better, than that of the Italian one. Gugganij 21:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy

Why ist the Vatican described as a monarchy rather than a theocracy or a hierocracy respectively? 62.46.183.40

Holy See

I'm a little puzzled by this statement: "Its borders are coextensive with the Holy See, the ecclesiastical seat of the Roman Catholic Church." Is not the Holy See the see of Rome? Does not the see of Rome cover the whole of Rome, not just the Vatican? Is this statement not then incorrect? Adam 14:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)