Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

Which particular things are not acknowledged? By that I mean ones that were the Church's fault and nto none by others claiming to act in its name.

That's a real question by the way, I don't know what's been acknowledged and what hasn't.

Hm, I'm not sure they should apologize for Galileo. That guy was a jerk, and the prosecution was about him blatantly and insistently dissing the pope, not heliocentrism, ...Or So I Heard.

That list of apologies is very noble. Well done indeed! This one in particular I found touching;

... What's mysterium iniquitatis?

Mysterium iniquitatis refers to the mistery of inequity, of aggravated, pernicious evil, which goes against Humanity. A major injustice/sin.

edited 17th Feb '15 2:57:52 PM by Quag15

That's mysterious?

Serious question, Handle: do you feel obligated to apologize for something some else does despite you, without your support or permission, even if they say they did it for you or because they convinced themselves that you'd approve? Do you feel that what they did is your responsibility? Because if you don't hold yourself to that strict of a standard, why do you hold the Church to it?

edited 17th Feb '15 3:03:38 PM by Madrugada

I have apologized on behalf of Muslims that were from different sects entirely, and I have apologized on behalf of seculars and leftists of entirely different currents, for brutal acts in the name of ideas that I hold dear, or that I cannot divorce myself from. I have apologized to wronged women on behalf of my gender. I have apologized to furious children on behalf of grown-ups. I have apologized to a mistreated horse on behalf of all of humani—wait, no, that was Nietzsche.

edited 17th Feb '15 3:10:28 PM by TheHandle

In the sense of 'lack of reason', or in the sense of 'hidden in the dark, which is not palpable' (my father is helping me out here. He studied in a seminar and was taught Latin and Greek).

edited 17th Feb '15 3:29:52 PM by Quag15

OK, Handle. Fair enough. You do hold yourself to that standard. It's a touchy spot for me, because "Why doesn't the Church apologize for <x thing that it didn't have control of>?" is a favorite tactic of people who do not hold themselves to that standard.

edited 17th Feb '15 3:27:41 PM by Madrugada

I was gonna say, that...might be one of those questions that you can expect a certain set of answers when you ask a Muslim in the era of rampant Islamophobia.

Nobody should get browbeaten into apologizing for the actions of denominations they have basically nothing to do with. Asking the Catholic Church to apologize for shit the Pentecostals get up to is not reasonable. Asking the Catholic Church to apologize for the shit that the Catholic Church got up to is entirely reasonable, even if it was a long time ago — doctrine and precedent stick around a long time, and crazy has a way of swelling if you don't explicitly address it.

edited 17th Feb '15 4:25:43 PM by Pykrete

I'm not inclined to apologize when the RCC does stupid stupid stupid things. (It would be like apologizing every time the Philippine govt. fucked up. Very tiring.)

On the other hand, I do not defend them either when they get flak for stupid things done.

Indeed. However, note that I never asked that the Church apologize for those past events done by itself or its predecessors or in its name. I merely suggested that it would be fair that they own it. Now, if X told me "You Muslims suck! You should apologize for your terrorist coreligionnaires, and for all the evil past deeds of Islamic civilization!" I would say something along the lines of "Given that I take great pride in the good things Islamic civilization has done throughout the centuries, it is indeed fair that I take credit for not just the good things that I didn't do, but also the bad. I humbly apologize to the victims of terrorism, religious extremism, and religious persecution, here in the West, but mostly, overwhelmingly, over there in the Middle East. I do so on behalf of the perpetrators, who claim to be of the same banner as I. However, I don't apologize to you, X, and your ignorant, islamophobic, amalgamating ass. Fuck you if you think you can leverage these atrocities for the petty purpose of bullying me."

Or something like that. I need to streamline this prepared answer, it seems clunky as of now. It might come in handy someday.

Shit, I wish I knew Latin and Greek. As it is, I've got a little vocabulary from my passion for etymology, but I can't inflect for shit.

Good response, for sure. And ditto on the Latin stuff. Some Church still do mass in Latin on occasion, It'd be interesting to attend.

Heh. I can read it bitches.

Or could. Once.

In all seriousness, is there any language on the European Continant you can't understand in some form my dearest Ach?

Don't mind me. I'm just a jealous ol' bear who would love to be as well traveled and linguistically gifted as you.

And read...

Between you and Euo I will never need of JSTOR.

Yep. I jelly...

I went to a mass when I was 10 years-old and went with my family to Rome on a holiday. Couldn't understand a word, but it had quite the... vibe, for lack of a better word.

Btw, I used JSTOR to get some journals for my upcoming Master's degree report. Are there better websites than that one?

I have found Google Scholar to be helpful.

I used that one as well. Good to find out some stuff. However, most of the stuff is incomplete, with those pages missing.

edited 18th Feb '15 2:48:21 PM by Quag15

?? If an article is available at all (some are behind pay sites) they should be complete.

Never noticed that it had a pay wall. Wish I could find a way to circumvent it.

Anyway, apologies for going off-topic.

Eleven women around the table - Iran delegation visits the Vatican:

?!

Do you have any doubts or are you just surprised that such a meeting actually happened?

Mmm. Apparently the Vatican is on alert due to threats of attacks by islamic extremists

This was reported by "Il giornale" in italy. I am not sure if it is a trustworthy newspaper, and the only link in english I could find came from here, which I do not know how trustworthy it is

The "ministry of Finances" of the vatican has been established following the reccomendations of the consulting started in 2013.

It has the motto Proprio Fidelis et Dispensator"

BBC link

I'm curious what issues the new ministry is designed to help with. I know there have been a couple of recent high-profile scandals, but are there any broader issues? Some accusations of more widespread financial irregularities have flown around, but I'm unsure how credible they are, how long-standing the alleged irregularities are, or what the nature of them even is. Are the Holy See's books in the keeping of too few people, or maybe of too many people (to the point they can't keep track of what each other is doing)? Are there problems with tracking income, spending, or both?

edited 3rd Mar '15 7:56:17 AM by Jhimmibhob

Some of the first Holy See's books were opened some time ago.

From what I understand some of the concerns are that the Pope is hoping that the Church's finances are abiding to money laundering laws of the world. One of the things you reference is where an italian caridnal was accused of smuggling a few million euros into Italy lately. Remember the Vatican has like 19000 bank accounts which the consulting firm supposedly analyzed

So I think it is about trying to regulate all that and abiding to law.