Talk:Vatican City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vatican City article.
Article policies
Vatican City is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Incorrect Population Rank

The page states the population rank to be 229th, but this page states that it is the 234th. 66.168.235.218 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Popes per square kilometer

There are two popes per square kilometer in Vatican city. Don't put that in the article, I just thought it was funny.

[edit] 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)
That means the extra-territorial properties come under the jurisdiction (though not sovereign) of the Holy See instead of the Vatican City, right? DD Ting 09:20, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)
You could (as in fact the Lateran treaties did) compare them with foreign embassies. Gugganij 22:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Government

/* Government */ changed it from "sovereigns that wield" [sic] to "sovereigns who exercise." "Wields" sounds as if the Pope is ordering bombs to be dropped on someone. Furthermore, every member of the Church is voluntarily subject to his authority. "Wields" might have been apropos in 1205, but not 2005.

Yes, every member of the church is voluntarily subject to his authority, but within the state of the Vatican City (which is what this aritcle is actually about) his rule is absolute. As a religious leader he supervises a voluntary flock; as a political sovereign, he is an absolute ruler over his admitedly tiny country. --Jfruh 02:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Pope is the last word, but he rarely if ever says anything about the daily workings of Vatican City.

[edit] Sports in the Vatican

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

[edit] 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.

I wonder if The Vatican can get more votes if they join the UN by using the Holy See as another entity like The Soviet Union used it's republics.Dudtz 12/9/05 5:07 PM EST

The other members would not grant double status. Which Soviet republics do you refer to? I doubt the Soviets ever got more votes the way you imply. Añoranza 03:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Although the Ukraine was obviously a part of the USSR it was nevertheless a voting member at the UN. However, since the Holy See has just an observer status at the UN it does not have the right to vote. Gugganij 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

3. Although Italian is without doubt used as an every day language of conversation, the Official Language is stated to be Latin, therefore it should not be omitted, they also continue to regulate the Latin Language, Nevertheless, Italian should still be posted as a "De facto" language. 11:55, 15 May 2008 (CDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtSPQR (talk • contribs)

I fear you are confusing Vatican City, a state that came into existence only in 1929, with the Holy See. Can you reference even one document of Vatican City State that has been issued in Latin? Lima (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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)

It has a discrepency again. It is now 234th and no 229th, as it is shown on the page.--60.229.139.94 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


Hello Friends,

For the Christians, the head of the Church is Christ and the pope is the Vicar of Christ. So, the eternal head is always living! And for the Vicar, again for the Christians, death is not the end! It is just the end of earthly life and the beginning of the 2nd life.

So, this reduces the question to “who is the head of the earthly Church?”. The answer is that there is nothing called earthly Church. The Church is the assembly of people who begin there life on earth and get into eternal life through the window of earthly death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.209.250 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of horsesh...--Gspinoza (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • Surely Vatican City is a theocracy? This resolves all the nasty bits aboves, since Christ may or may not be the head of Vatican City, but it is certainly governed on his behalf. Check the definition of a theocracy and see! Pydos 12:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The head of Vatican City is the pope, there is no doubt about that. The supreme head of the Catholic church is Jesus Christ (although its visible, temporal head is the pope as well). Gugganij 22:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Monarchy

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

  • see my point @ Christocracy (on this page). I reckon, like you, that it should be called a Theocracy. Pydos 12:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Vatican City is a papacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.100.8 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer: I think the Pope's position is an elected one rather than one getting automatically handed over to immediate blood relatives. One may wish to see it as monarchy, but the fact is, it is not a monarchy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.209.250 (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

I'm pretty sure that you are correct. Over at the diocese of Rome page at Catholic-Hierarchy.org, it says that the Roman diocese covers 340 square miles -- obviously much larger than just the Vatican. The Holy See article opens with "The term Holy See ... refers in a geographic sense to the episcopal see of Rome." I've changed the language to something that is indisputably true. Hopefully someone who knows more will chime in on this talk page. --Jfruh 19:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Head of Government

In the article under the listing of Government it says Pope - Pope Benedict XVI, Actually he is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the Head of State of Vatican City, I've corrected this accordingly. Misterrick 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican Hill

Mons Vaticanus, and the adjacent Vatican Fields upon which St. Peter's Basilica and its Sistine Chapel, Apostolic Palace and museums were built, predates Christendom. Of couse it predates Christendom, it's been there as long as the world has! Does anyone mind if I delete that?

Lee S. Svoboda 22:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican City not independent?

I reverted changes claiming that the Vatican is not an independant state. According to my information it is recognized as such. Gugganij 20:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, while the changes you zapped way overstate things (and in my opinion you were right to revert them), the relationship between Vatican City and the Holy See is quite complex and I don't fully understand it (and I'm sure I'm not alone in fully understanding it). The bottom line is that the Holy See -- which is, as I understand it, the bishopric of Rome as an institution -- is a sovereign entity, meaning that no sovereign authority (i.e. nation or state) controls it. The Holy See and Vatican City are not the same entity. Ambassadors are accredited to and by the Holy See, not the Vatican, and it's the Holy See that enters into international treaties, not the Vatican. I *think* the reasons for the distinction are that (1) the Holy See controls property that is neither within the boundries of Vatican City nor given extraterritorial rights and (2) the Holy See as a sovereign entity predated the Lateran Treaties that brought Vatican City into existence. One way of looking at it is that the Holy See is sovereign but has no territory itself, and that Vatican City is non-sovereign and controlled by the Holy See, which is quite paradoxical but is I think the perspective that the edits you removed had. Perhaps a better way to put it is that Vatican City is that territory over which the Holy See is absolutely sovereign, though Vatican City does not constitute the whole of the Holy See.
Anyway, this sort of thing comes up often enough on this page that a seciton on the relationship between the two entities should perhaps be added. If no one smarter than me adds it, I will probably try to apply my no doubt flawed understanding in the hopes that someone who knows more can correct me. --Jfruh 21:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, adding a section dedicated to the Vatican-Holy See relationship might be useful. What makes things even more complicated is the fact that the term "Holy See" means different things in different contexts. In some cases the term just encompass the pope alone. In the case of the Vatican City-Holy See relationship I think it is used exactely in that sense. Article 2 of the Vatican constitution might support that view (Vatican constitution - in Italian, I couldn't find an English version):
The representation of the state in its relationship with foreign states and other subjects of international law, for diplomatic relations and the conclusion of treaties, is reserved solely to the Supreme Pontiff, who exercise his rights through the secretariate of state.
My translation, sorry for any mistakes
Gugganij 11:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just Wondering

What kind of people live in the Vatican? The Population is around 950, but what are thier jobs? Why do they live there? Are they just monks or normal people? This is driving me insane! The Republican 03:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The clear majority of residents are the swiss guard. I suppose the rest would just hold clerical positions and then there would be cleaners and of course the pope and his staff. 58.178.35.0 10:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Message to The Republican. Please note that monks are 'normal people' too - some of my best friends are monks!

[edit] Diplomatic Relations

I think it should be noted in the article that the Vatican is the only European state to recognize the Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China. In the Foreign Relations section, it states that the Vatican recognizes 174 "sovereign states", however the sovereignty of the ROC is disputed at best, but I am not sure how to note this. 24.14.92.28 05:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official language?

Is there a law or regulation, some primary source of legal standing, that declares that Latin is an official language of the State of the Vatican City? I don't think we can call it an official language unless it says so somewhere in law. Note that Swedish is not the official language of Sweden, nor is English the official language of the United States. These are two of the many countries that lack an official language, that is, whatever the language usage of their governments in practice, there is no law stating that a certain language is the official one.

(I also raised this question in Talk:Latin.) --Cam 18:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Edited my comment --Cam 18:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I added "used for official purposes" in the table footnote to "soften" the official language listing, since we don't know for sure that Latin is legally official in Vatican City. I didn't call it "de facto" because that might imply that we know for sure that is not legally official. (I did something similar at Latin with a similar comment in Talk:Latin.) --Cam 12:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holy See's Espionage

Heard and read countless times that the Jesuit (?) missions around the world help make the Vatican one of the most intelligence-savvy nations. Anyone knowledgeable want to add smthg to the article? Ksenon 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Where have you read these "countless" claims? In my (admittedly limited) experience, the Jesuits are about as clandestine as the Rotary Club. 128.163.235.65 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates and cleanup + factual accuracy

I have merged most of the diplomatic information into Holy See since the Vatican City is not a member of any of those organizations nor does it enter into diplomatic relations with any state. Additional update and cleanup are necessary, especially considering that the Fundamental Law for Vatican City, enacted in 2001, has altered the form of government, and considering that the tribunals of the Roman Curia (Signatura, Rota, and Penitentiary) are not involved at all in the civil matters of the Vatican state. Pmadrid 02:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms

I reverted the coat of arms image to the red shield because it conforms the closest to the blazon given at the Holy See's website here. Pmadrid 07:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is not Vatican's coat of arms. Vatican's arms should be the same as the one on the national flag, and without red shield. The arms' image should be changed back.
As far as I know the depiction including the red shield is correct. I guess that the Vatican flag actually doesn't depict the coat of arms, but just share an important element with it. Gugganij 11:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the flag's description [4] just mentiones that in the white part there will be the two keys underneath the tiara. It does not mention the arms at all, which explains why the rendering of the flag does not have a shield. However, the description of the blazon of the arms is fairly exacting, requiring a red shield and gold cord. This is why the arms of the Vatican City are different from the logo on the flag.Pmadrid 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think the coat of arms should be like the one below? It is the same as the one in the Vatican sebsite. Is it ok if I change the coa picture to this one?
If you did, it would not conform to the blazon. Although it is used on the vatican website, my guess is that it was unofficially put together for the website by one of the webmasters, since it neither conforms to the blazon listed in the law and treaties made by the Pope nor does it comply with the general rules of blazonry. Pmadrid 20:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I found the law (or more like constitution) of Vatican City (in Italian language) from the Vatican City's official website. The link is here: http://www.vaticanstate.va/NR/rdonlyres/FBFEA0E8-B43A-452A-AAA0-1AF49590F658/2615/Supplemento.pdf. Near the end of the pages, there is a picture of the coat of arms which is more like the picture above rather than in the infobox. 17.53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Map!!

There is no map for the location of the Vatican. The map of Italy gives a false impression. We need a little point to make it clear.Trompeta 12:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Vatican City maintains two modern security corps, the famous Swiss Guards, a voluntary military force drawn from male Swiss citizens and the Corpo della Gendarmeria dello Stato della Città del Vaticano. They are not really an army of the Vatican City State so much as a police force and the personal bodyguard of the Pope."

Which one is the police force and which is the body guards? What is "Corpo della Gendarmeria dello Stato della Città del Vaticano" ? I don't speak Italian. --24.94.189.11 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The Swiss Guards are the bodyguards of the Pope. The Corpo della Gendarmeria is the police force. ";Corpo" means Corps, "della" means "of the" and "Gendarmeria" means Gendarmerie. --Silvano 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am seeking a map or list of properties in Rome owned by the Vatican/Holy See. I know there is a list of extraterritorial properties but I want to know about others held by the Vatican like buildings, monasteries, convents, etc... I have read that the Vatican owns 25-30 percent of Rome. Does anyone have a clue about this? Sienna 1:33pm 16 January 2007

[edit] Small Correction

Hallo, I made a small correction in the history section. Vatican City WAS a part of Rome until 1929. The separation with the larger part of the city was only geographical, but this is also valid for Trastevere.

alex2006 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the murder on 1998

it says that the murder in 1998 was committed by a man who killed two people and then himself. This might not be true because i have read somewhere that there could have been someone else who killed the man and the other two victims.

Right. It's widely known nowadays that Cédric Tornay was innocent. He was prosecuting evidences of dirty affairs and was killed by order of power peoples. I read the whole story in the book "Bloody lies in the Vatican" published in Italy by Kaos Edizioni. Read also website Cédric Tornay Memorial, managed by his mother, where the strange behaviour of the Vatican is shown with a lot of evidences. Vatican also created a lot of obstacles to the lawyers and managed through Swiss government to stop the action for discovering truth. Val from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.180.221 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallest Country

Isn't Vatican City the second smallest after the smallest, The Sovereign Order of Malta? --24.251.64.217 07:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sovereign Military Order of Malta isn't a country. From our article, the United Nations does not classify the SMOM as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers." Gentgeen 08:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Sealand, which is also not considered a country... 71.103.227.247 03:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)YeoungBraxx

[edit] Very confusing sentence in opening paragraph

I don't really know about the topic, so I am hoping that someone who does can clarify this sentence:

Although governed by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), the Vatican City State is not the Holy See and its government is a monarchy even though it is sometimes described as ecclesiastical and the highest state functionaries are indeed clergymen.

I doubt that the style manual places a limit on the number of clauses in a sentence, but perhaps it ought to. A Pattern O 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Germanic Navigation-Template

Wouldn't it be a nice idea to add the Template:Germanic Europe? German is the official language of the Swiss Guard, they are permanent residents of the Vatican, 110 men... The Vatican has a total of 932 citizes, therefor (including the pope) at least 12% of the people of vatican speak german, a germanic language... Probably more ;-) ... --PSIplus Ψ 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic apologists?

Someone please take a look at the use of this term "Catholic apologists." It seems absurd in the context and might well be vandalism. I have not changed it, preferring to allow others to judge. MacSigh 05:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The apparent discovery of St Paul's sarcophagus

This is mentioned variously in the news - a mention here might be appropriate. Jackiespeel 17:53, December 2006 (UTC) blahØ

[edit] Department store?

... Cardinal Szoka moved the Vatican's department store out of a glum basement and into the former train station, a spacious, refurbished stone building behind St. Peter's Basilica. New merchandise was added: high-end perfumes, $3,000 Longines watches and flat-screen TVs from Panasonic.

Is there an article for this department store? -- Toytoy 06:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independence

The infobox states that VC got its independence from the Kingdom of Gozo. A Google search turns up no mention of a Kingdom of Gozo. Is the Kingdom of Gozo accurate? --Daysleeper47 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What you had seen is vandalism. Vatican City gained its independence from the Kingdom of Italy through the Lateran Treaty. It stays unedited for 3 days and I have just removed it. FYI, you can revert or undo the changes yourself (see WP:REVERT). Cheers, Joshua Chiew 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

I am failing this due to criteria 2, it is factually accurate and verifiable. Not enough references for an article this size, and there's multiple one sentence paragraphs

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 ft, use 4 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 ft.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 4 ft.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), offense (A) (British: offence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Also these problems M3tal H3ad 02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sealand

Please stop noting that the principality os Sealand is smaller, as this is irrelevant. It is not a soverign state or recognised as a nation. While the intent to continue to say this is not tantamount to Vandalism, it runes a close second. Eedo Bee 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sealand isn't a country. Because all contries don't want it. It's population is 5, İt's area is 550 m2.

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb 2007 00:41 (UTC)

[edit] Population going down?

In an old World Book it stated the population was 1000, is it going down? Now its 783.

O nüfus yuvarlatılmış ve sürekli değiştiği için 1000 olarak yazılmış. Örneğin bazı yerlerde 781, 930, 1200 yazıyor. (Please translate it into English from Turkish.)

[edit] Icorrect dating in the history artical.

The correct dates of the pope Clement V moving the papacy to avignon was in 1305 -1377. He had been crowned in lyons in front of king phillip and taken residence in avignon in 1305. See [[5]] "At Bordeaux, Bertrand was formally notified of his election and urged to come to Italy; but he selected Lyon for his coronation, November 14, 1305, which was celebrated with magnificence and attended by Philip IV. Among his first acts was the creation of nine French cardinals." And refrenceF.L. Cross and E.A. livingstone (eds), the oxford dictionary of the christian church, oxford university press, 1988, pp.117 and 119. i am new here so i dont really know where this information should go but if anyone can disprove this i would like to know. I hate when you dont know what to trust. \ \ \ RF23 \ \ Email me at keiko.poop@Gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keikopunk (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Flag

Can anyone see why the flag is not displaying properly in the main infobox? I've tried fiddling with it, but can't make it appear. Timothy Titus 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

Does anyone know how to contact their government? Therequiembellishere 06:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime:Capital Punishment

I hate to nit-pick but I noticed that on the article it said that its abolition of cap. punishment was in I think, 1969 (???) and then states the last execution to be in the 1800's (didn't get a good look with the dates but with regards to my to my argument the important part is correct) which is fine and I don't have any complaints. However, the part I am at odds with is "but" which I believe is in this case defined to refute the earlier sentence of the date of its abolition and obviously there is no conflict as to there being no exception to the claim that there it was abolished so therefor I am going to delete and put "with" as I can't seem to find a better more fluid and correct term to put at the moment. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Wiseblood1 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papal Army

If someone knows something about the Papal army during the Middle Ages. I'd love to know anything. Exept about the Vatican guard(I already know about them,but if you know something I don't, DO share), Im mean like the Papal navy and Roman militia/army. Thanks.Philippe Auguste 03:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a brief article on the military of Vatican City. However, basicly, the Pontifical Swiss Guard is the only current military unit in Vatican City. There is also the Corpo della Gendarmeria, whose name suggests it is a military police unit, but in actuality is simply a police force. Pope Paul VI abolished the former units of the Vatican's military force in 1970, the Noble Guard, the Palatine Guard, and the earlier Gendarmeria. The Papal States also had military units, including the Papal Zouaves, the Corsican Guards, etc. Gentgeen 08:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship

Could someone aply to live in the vatican,for instance,when one would be born in its teritory while ,for instance,ones mother would go there and give birth there?Cause then,that person would not have any other citizenship that Vatican and thus could aply to live in the vatican.

New Babylon 2 13:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Article 9 of the Lateran Treaty establishes that anyone who has Vatican citizenship and then stops living in Vatican City and therefore looses their Vatican citizenship shall be regarded as an Italian national. So, in my opinion, no, being born there would not qualify one for future residence. However, I am not an international lawyer. Gentgeen 09:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be impossible, because the access to the state is not free: peoples can freely enter only St.Peter's Square, which gives access only to St.Peter's Basilica, but it is sorrounded by walls excepted towards Italy. So nobody can enter the Vatican, but the square and the basilica. More, peoples can enter Vatican Museums, buying a ticket, but there is no way to leave museums for the other parts of the state. Whole Vatican is sorrounded by a wall, excepted the point in which St.Peter's Square can be entered from Italy. Citizenship, however, follows neither jus soli nor jus sanguinis. It is granted to: 1) the pope and his relatives living together; 2) Cardinals living in Rome (also outside the Vatican) and their relatives living together; 3) peoples depending from Vatican state and their families living together (but children loose citizenship at 25); 4) peoples personally obtaining it by the Pope, who is an absolute monarch. Val, from Rome, Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.180.221 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that this addresses the issue thoroughly. Someone could certainly give birth there (if the labour came on suddenly and she could not be taken to hospital in time). All the mentions of citizenship being revoked when people leave office/reach a certain age are based on that citizenship having been granted because of that/their parent's office. It is probably the case, but are we quite certain that birth would not confer citizenship? The parents could be from a country which would not award its own citizenship to children born overseas. Even if Italy would offer citizenship (which we should not assume from the current wording, which indicates the basis of another citizenship being *revoked*), why should someone have to have Italian citizenship when they were not born there? At any rate, the article should address this issue explicitly (if very briefly). Salopian (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Border checks

In the Italian wiki version of the Vatican State, in the discussion forum there is mentioned that there are border checks done by the "Gendarmeria Vaticana" inside the Vatican buildings, anybody have any further news? - Ale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.206.6 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Admittance, except to Saint Peter's Square and Basilica and to the Vatican Museums, which take up, I suppose, nearly half the Vatican City area, is only on business. Otherwise, you'd have tens of thousands of curious sightseers tramping around outside and inside the buildings all day. One or two of those discussing the matter on the Italian Talk page don't seem to understand the distinction between border checks (controlli di frontiera) and checks on people entering a building or reserved area. Lima 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Rome and NEVER saw peoples "tramping around ouside and inside the buildings"! However, there is no check to enter Vatican,which is possible only through a point to St.Peter's Square and Basilica, or buying a ticket to Museums (whose entrance is in Italy, a door in the walls). Val —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.180.221 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vestige of the Papal States

Although several books have been written about it, it can be summarized as follows:

  1. The loss of the Papal States in 1870 was never recognized by the Roman pontiffs until the Lateran Treaty.
  2. Other sovereign nations still recognized the sovereignty of the pope despite the loss of the Papal States.
  3. The Roman pontiffs continued to maintain and exchange embassies with other powers.
  4. The Roman Question was not settled until the Lateran Treaty.
  5. Pope Pius XI had a specific reason why a treaty(definition: a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations. - treaty. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 06, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treaty) was signed first: since a treaty can only be entered between two sovereign powers, the popes commited the Kingdom of Italy into accepting the Roman pontiffs's de facto and de jure sovereignty. It was only after the treaty was signed that the concordat and the financial settlement was signed.
  6. If you read the text of the Lateran Treaty, it is clearly stated that it was only at that point that the Supreme Pontiffs accepted the de facto loss of the Papal States. Furthermore, the treaty also states that with the signing of the treaty, the de facto and de jure sovereignty of the Supreme Pontiffs were recognized by the Kingdom of Italy. Moreover, it was only at that point that the Papal States was juridically abolished and the State of the Vatican City created.

FYI

Dr mindbender 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is correct, as far as it goes. It needs to have added to it an explicit distinction between the Holy See ("Roman Pontiff" is the term used above) and the territorial entities of the Papal States and the Vatican City State. States that recognized the incorporation of the Papal States into the Kingdom of Italy and so no longer recognized the Pope as a territorial sovereign could and did recognize the Roman Pontiff/Holy See as a subject of international law.

Even when the Pope was sovereign of the Papal States in central Italy, he had a recognized spiritual sovereignty as well as a territorial sovereignty. It was not on account of the latter that he held precedence over the Emperor and the other rulers of nations, that his envoys were received with the highest honours, that the papal court was considered one of the most coveted diplomatic posts. And after the complete loss of temporal power in the nineteenth century, the Pope continued to exercise the active and passive right of legation, as well as being called upon as arbiter and mediator by states for the settlement of international conflicts.

The Lateran Treaty of 11 February 1929 was entered into by two subjects of international law, two sovereign powers. While negotiations were going on, and in the very act of making the treaty, one of these powers, Italy, did not recognize any territorial authority on the part of the other, but "Italy recognize(d) the sovereignty of the Holy See in the international field as an inherent attribute of its nature, in conformity with its tradition and the requirements of its mission in the world" (article II of the treaty). The Vatican City State was then "created" (article III) or "constituted" (Preamble), not recognized as an existing vestige of the Papal States. By the same treaty the Holy See "recognise(d) the Roman Question, raised in 1870 with the assigning of Rome to the Kingdom of Italy under the dynasty of the House of Savoy, as settled in an irrevocable manner" (Preamble). The last vestige of the Papal States was the Rome of 1870, not the Vatican City State that was created (a word that in theology is used of making something out of nothing) in 1929. Lima 04:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capital?

On the Dutch wikipedia we are having a discussion about whether Vatican City is it's own capital or whether it actually doesn't have a capital. I have looked on several pages for this information, but I was only able to find conflicting information. The list of capitals sorted by name says Vatican City is its own capital, but the list of capitals sorten by country doesn't even mention Vatican City! Could someone please help us on this point, please? Erispre 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See, I never even thought of this problem. Uhm, I guess the only reliable source to such a specific question would be an official document of the Vatican City state itself, and those are not easy to come across online. ---- Nehwyn (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -Claim of Peter being in Rome has no Historial basis!-

No evidence in the bible of Peter being in Rome. There a scriptures mentions Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. Some Catholics believe they interpretated as Rome, but is not supported by fact. It been questioned my many Catholics e.g., Peter de Marca & Desiderius (Gerhard) Erasmus. The stories about Peter’s martyrdom in Rome are strictly traditional, with no solid historical support.

Some deleted some longer comments made supporting this information in detail.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk • contribs) who has not yet learned to sign, as indicated at the top of every editing page, "by typing four tildes (~~~~)". Lima 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that at the top, I'll date them, but not sign them I protect my privacy in this case, please respect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official languages

Hello everyone. I've inserted fact tags about two specific statements: 1) "Latin is the official language of the Holy See", and 2) "Italian is the official language of the Vatican City". Can anyone cite a reliable source that specifically states one of the above? In the article, the fact that the official gazette is in Latin has been mentioned as evidence that Latin is the official language of the Holy See, but that is an implicit assumption (and not a valid one in constitutional law) - can anyone cite a statement sourcing any of those two claims? --Nehwyn 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Seven minutes before posting this, Nehwyn (re)inserts the statement that Italian is the official language of the Vatican State, and then questions his own statement! He also (re)inserts a statement about an official language of the Holy See, which, being a different entity from Vatican City State, is off-topic in this article, and then he tacks on to that too a citation request!
The whole body of legislation and official regulations of the Vatican State, published in supplements to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (an illustration of the cover of the first such supplement can be seen here), has nothing about an official language. Vatican City, like the United States, has no declared official language; but, as the illustration shows, its laws and regulations are in Italian. That makes Italian its language for official purposes. Some may therefore call Italian its de-facto, non-declared, official language. Others may prefer not to call it an official language in any sense whatever. The reality is the same, whatever you call it.
I have now removed this article from my watchlist. I don't want even to be reminded of this.Lima 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahem, you got some confusion there. The statement that Italian is the official language of the Vatican City is not mine; it was made by User:Ignis Fatuus (in this diff). The statement about the Holy See, which I agree should not even be there, was also made by the same user. I just inserted the fact tags for both, because I doubt them. Your reply here confirms that neither entity has an official language (the "de facto" language may be called a national language, but no an "official" one). Thanks for clearing that up. I think I'll delete Ignis Fatuus' claim unless a source comes up. --Nehwyn 06:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook give major languages as Latin, French, Italian and various others, perhaps we should mention these three major languages? Therequiembellishere 16:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, our own list of official languages shows the Vatican as having Italian and Latin as its official languages and since it is an observer of the Latin Union, we can say that Italian, Latin or French are considered as official to the Union. I remember seeing that someone put Spanish as a working language once, and this is actually why I came to this page, so if anyone can track down that source, it would be of interest. Finally, on this note, our list of countries where French is an official language has a cite source on a comment on the Vatican letting itself register as a French-speaking country in the international organisations with which it has relationships, so I hope someone can provide a source to that as well. Therequiembellishere 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I hope this is my final note, but the Papal Swiss Guard uses German as its own official language. Therequiembellishere 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually List of official languages by state claims Vatican City has no official language. (The concept of "de fact" official language is meaningless - that is a national language.) The CIA factbook makes no distinction between Holy See and Vatican City, and still does not claim any language is official. Unless a source comes up that state any language is official, I'd leave the template box as it is. Unofficial languages can be discussed in a specific section of the article, I'd say. ---- Nehwyn (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that they were official, just major. So if we do start a languages section, the languages to mention will be Latin (de facto), Italian (national), French (diplomatic) and German (military). Can anyone track down how Spanish was once up there and if English is also used? -- Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


We definitely have to start a language section. It's a bit complex, and we have to distinguish between written and spoken use, as well as between the Holy See and Vatican City, so let's have a recap:
  • Written language of the Holy See: The Holy See invariably uses Latin for any official document relating to its religious activity, although often it will also publish translated versions (especially of papal documents). Press releases are never in Latin but invariably in Italian, and again translations are routinely available in other European languages. Documents written for international conferences or to be submitted to international organisations (e.g. the UN or WHO) are usually in French and/or English; again translations are common.
  • Written language of the Vatican City: Official documents of the Vatican City state (including laws and regulations) are in Italian. Period.
  • Spoken language: Here the distinction between the Holy See (an organisation) and the Vatican City (a state) becomes very, very thin. Basically, there are three kind of people in the Vatican: clergy, lay workers, and the Swiss Guard.
    • Clerics (priests, nuns, and the occasional monk) come from all over the world, and virtually always use Italian as a common language, except of course when a conversation is limited to people coming from countries with the same native language, who in that case naturally switch to that one. Since statistically speaking there are a lot of clerics from French- and Spanish-speaking countries (not just France and Spain obviously, consider sub-saharian Africa and Latin America), those two languages are common options. For example, John Paul II and his personal secretary normally spoke Italian in their public daily activities, but switched back to their native Polish when speaking privately between themselves. I suppose the current Pope does the same with the German.
    • Lay workers are for the vast majority Italian, and therefore speak Italian among themselves as well as with clerics and guards. Note that the "policemen" of the Vatican City (the Gendarmes) are also included in this category.
    • Swiss Guards mostly come from German-speaking cantons of Switzerland, and therefore use German both to speak among themselves and for training activities. Still, they all know Italian and use that language when speaking to anyone else.

I hope this clears up the situation. Now we have to choose how to put this in article form, and where. ---- Nehwyn (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags and page history

Out of curiosity I have come back after my outburst one evening when I was not feeling well, and for which I apologize. Just a few small points: Nehwyn did more than "just insert the fact tags". If he looks at his edit of 16:44 on 14 November, he will see that he changed "No legislation has been passed about an official language, but Italian is the language in which legislation and official regulations are in fact issued (in the form of supplements to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis)" to the to me amazing "[Italian language|Italian]] is the official language of Vatican City.{{fact|date=November 2007}} Latin is considered the official language of the Holy See,{{fact|date=November 2007}} as witnessed by the title of the official gazette, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, but official documents are sometimes, though much less frequently, issued in other languages, rather than Latin. The language of the Papal Swiss Guard is German." I suppose Nehwyn imagined he was changing some other text. The other little point is that the Holy See does not invariably use Latin for "any official document relating to its religious activity": Mit brennender Sorge was by no means the only high-level document issued in a language other than Latin. And in relation to the language or languages of the state and its inhabitants and the much more numerous people who do not live in it but come there each day for work, I don't see why the Holy See should be mentioned at all. Most of the offices of the Holy See are situated outside the state: the Secretariat of State is the only one situated in the state, unless you count minor offices such as that for papal audiences (the Prefecture of the Papal Household). The Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, which now uses English in its conferences and publications, has its seat in the state and nowhere else, but nobody would think of mentioning it in relation to the language, official, usual, or whatever, of the state. Again, a glance at the list of those working in the Secretariat of State is enough to show that it has more male religious than nuns - and that the signore (Mrs) and signorine (Miss) are not all that much less numerous than the nuns. Well, I have had my say. I still have not put this article back on my watchlist. -- Lima (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ehm, no. The statement you quote above, including the claim of official status, is not mine. Its author is Ignis Fatuus in [this diff], and as you can see he states the same in his edit summary. Also notice that he did not insert fact tags; those were mine. My own views on the subject are instead summarised by [this other diff], which is indeed my text. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question regarding the Vatican Television Centre

Is it connected in any way to RAI, the Italian public broadcaster? On the Italian Wikipedia there is a page for a section of RAI called "Rai Vaticano". Does RAI own the Vatican Television Centre, or do both entities engage in heavy co-operation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.196.223 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither. The two are completely separate. The CTV (Centro Televisivo Vaticano) is the independent television centre of the Vatican City State, and is responsible for the two TV channels controlled directly by the Vatican - the old Telepace (on regular TV) and the newer Sat2000 (on satellite and digital). RAI Vaticano is an office within the Italian broadcaster that deals specifically with news regarding the Vatican and the Pope's travels abroad. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Legends

I've been considering adding some information about the persistant urban legends that surround the Vatican (namely, that it supposely has the 'largest collection of pornographic material in the world', and the 'silver hammer' legend), but I'm not sure if it should be added, and/or where.

Any opinions? 64.180.205.246 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll just assume that you're joking about that. Just in case you're not joking... that wouldn't be a welcomed addition to the article.--Anietor (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine Donation

Should the article on Vatican City not include the Constantine Donation or Donatio Constantini? There is a good article bout it in this same Wikipedia.

Poldebol (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Europe

Hello Vatican City! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official language

The official language, according to the Constitution of the Vatican State, is italian:

http://www.filodiritto.com/diritto/pubblico/internazionale/cittadelvaticano.htm

"The official language in Vatican City State is italian, but official acts are edited in latin"

Therefore I will put both italian and latin as official languages in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcer80 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is incorrect. The official language is Italian, not Italian and Latin. There are countries with more than one official language, and that's not the same thing. Tb (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I should say though that I'm happy with the infobox text, which lists both and explains it in a note. Tb (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the footnote because the former version was incorrect. Feel free to modify it --Jcer80 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No need; I think it's excellent as you have fixed it. Tb (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must disagree. The source quoted contradicts itself. While it says the official language is Italian - which is correct, though only in the same sense as one can say that English is (in practice though not by law) the official language of the United States - it then says that "official acts are edited in Latin" - which is false. The official acts of the Vatican City State are published in the form of a supplement to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the Latin name of the official gazette of the Holy See). However, the official acts of the Vatican City State published in that supplement are entirely in Italian, as anyone who looks at it can see. And even the writer himself gives in the very next paragraph examples of official acts of the Vatican City State that are, of course, in Italian, not Latin.
Since some think I treat anything in a secondary source as fair game, I leave it to others to undo the changes introduced on the basis of this particular source. Lima (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't want to undo them: that would switch it back to Latin! I've fixed it. Tb (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Back to how it was on 14 November Lima (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field but the site [Wikitravel says that Latin and Italian are both the official language. List of official languages by state says that there is no official language, hover Latin is the de facto official language and Italian spoken also. The CIA website says that Italian, Latin, French, and various other languages is spoken but does not state about an official language. This is quite confusing... Demophon (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Latin bit is working by "it must be so" rather than any actual evidence to support it. Latin is the official language of the church, but that's not the same thing at all. Tb (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I also wouldn't consider Wikitravel and Wikipedia to be reliable sources. Gentgeen (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Griping about palaces in intro

The last paragraph of the intro section seems out of place. Do we need to dedicate so much space at the top of the article on where the Pope's official residence is now and has been throughout history and which palace has hosted more ecumenical councils? Gentgeen (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Utilites

No where in the document is mentioned where the Vatican gets its utilites from and how they are paid and such. I suspect these to be explained under the Latern Treart section but they arent. This should be revided when possible.

[edit] Latin is the official language

So I do not find myself in an edit war, I decided to open this chat. I saw an arguement that Latin is the official language of the holy See, not the Vatican City country itself. I disagree strongly. Vatican City has Latin and Italian as both official languages. I have references on books to prove, most recently 2007. If you have an updated source, book preferbly of 2008, please release that source. Otherwise, my Atlas of the World, published in 2007 (In Icelandic, but translated from English) says on the country information "Vatican City: Official language: Latin, Italian". Also other encyclopedias, and I even checked at the library. No where does it state a distinguishment between Vatican City and Holy See for the official language. Some just have as the country name "Vatican City (Holy See)" as the official country name, if I might add.

Besides this point, please view EVERY SINGLE WIKIPEDIA in the other languages, including the major ones like Spanish, French, Italian, Latin, and German. They all have "Latin" as the official language, even some don't even include Italian. I welcome people to agree with me or challenge me if I am wrong and there is an updated reference for 2008 stating that Latin is no longer an official language of Vatican City. --Girdi (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again we are up against the Wikipedia problem of sources, and in particular the absolute precedence that many editors grant to anything whatever found in a secondary source, even if it disagrees with what a plain non-expert look at the primary source shows to be a fact. In this case, not a single official document of the Vatican State has ever been issued in Latin. All of them, including the foundation treaty and the basic laws, as well as day-to-day regulations authorizing issues of new stamps or laying down traffic regulations and fines, are issued in Italian. The documents can be consulted in the appendix (entirely in Italian) of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official gazette of the Holy See. (The Holy See's official documents are issued in many languages, but its laws and regulations are in Latin.) Many editors will say that the text of the official documents of the Vatican City State, published in this appendix (and elsewhere) is "only" a primary source and that Wikipedia must only give what secondary sources say. For my part, I think we should use common sense. Lima (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that Vatican City uses Italian day to day, and the Holy See issues documents in Latin. We both agree on that. Now the argument is Holy See versus Vatican City. In all the countries I have been to which have a Vatican representation/embassy, it says "Vatican City - Holy See Embassy". Is the Holy See a part of Vatican City, or runs Vatican City, or IS Vatican City? Can we seperate Holy See from Vatican City as a country? For a compromise, why not include Latin with a footnote stating "Latin is used in the Holy See as an official language", as a majority of Wikipedias include.
Sources is another argument. I understand and respect your argument regarding secondary and primary sources, but what about checking the sources of the seconday sources? Also, if a majority, or all of the seconday sources I found have Latin listed as an official language of Vatican City, then why can't Wikipedia as a secondary source have it too? This might really confuse people, Wikipedia being the only seconday source without Latin as an official language, at least that I have seen. --Girdi (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps telephone directories and the like may say the "embassy" is of Vatican City. The Diplomatic List of the country's Foreign Ministry will know better and will say that the Apostolic Nunciature is the embassy of the Holy See, not of the Vatican City State. The Holy See existed before 1929, when the state came into existence for the first time. Ambassadors were accredited to the Holy See long before the Vatican City State came to be, and they are still accredited to the Holy See, not to the state. The countries that send the ambassadors are not interested in having relations with a 44-hectare statelet. They are highly interested in having relations with the Holy See. Lima (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, this I didn't understand at first. So I offer again a suggestion, since there are still ties between Holy See and Vatican city, can we have both languages there but a footnate stating "Latin is used as official only in the Holy See" so we stop confusing amongst other wikipedias and secondary sources? I am talking about this from a learner's point of view, not a Wiki-editor that wants his edit in. Try to understand, when I looked at the Vatican City article I was really confused, until I looked at the Edit istory and saw you wrote "not to be confused with Holy See". This information is not easily accessible on this article and might confuse people doing research on VC. So if we include Latin with a footnate or parantheses stating "Used only in Holy See" I think that will be great. --Girdi (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Holy See is not the only entity with a base in Vatican City. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences publishes in English and French. Should we add a note about these two languages? The United Nations Organization, based in New York, has a number of official languages: should we add a note about that to the New York article, which at present says the city has no official language? Lima (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but still, this is a more of a confusion basis as opposed to a digging into extreme detail facts. Official language: Latin (not Vatican City, used in Holy See), how can that hurt anyone, or lie, or state facts wrongly? I was extremely confused not to see Latin there but on other wikis until we had this discussion , but not every single person who doesn't even know what "Discussion" tab does will know to check it to get an explanation, nor have time to read in depth the article to find out why Latin isn't there. With all do respect, I'd like to see other people chip in on this discussion too so it isn't just 1 on 1. Again, with all due respect Lima. --Girdi (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think you were confused by the article. You didn't understand the facts, and when you saw the facts correctly reported, you thought the report was wrong. But the confusion here is caused by the fact that the situation itself is complex. As for the Holy See, it's not clear that it has any "official language" either: official documents there are issued in various languages, sometimes Latin, sometimes Italian, sometimes another language. We don't normally talk about "official languages" of ecclesiastical entities like that anyhow, the way we do of states. The article did not contribute to your confusion; your confusion existed before the article ever got involved, and the consequence of seeing the article was that you could (1) notice your confusion, and (2) clear it up. Tb (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I was confused by this article, don't tell me about that, you don't know! And I would love to show you this source CIA World Factbook Holy See (Vatican City), I just love seeing Vatican City in parentheses around Holy See, and Latin listed under languages. Please, be my guest. :) --Girdi (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The source quoted confuses the Holy See with the 1929-founded Vatican City State. Do you really think the Holy See did not exist until 1929, when the Vatican City State came into existence? Lima (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International recognition

Seeing as the Vatican State was recognized as a sovereign nation by the USA as late as in 1984, it would be interesting to find out when other nations recognized this entity, and also which countries still do not recognize it. __meco (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What the US has relations with is the Holy See: see United States Embassy to the Holy See. For an indication of how many other nations have diplomatic relations with that entity, see Holy See#Diplomacy. No country has diplomatic relations directly with the Vatican City State. 16:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Help appreciated. __meco (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)