Category talk:Italian Roman Catholics

Untitled

Is fully evident that those who argue against Mr. Bruno's classification do so with malicious intent to distance the Italian Roman Catholic 16th century venue from the uncalled for Roman Catholic Church demanded horrible murder of a great scholar. Running away from or hiding this classification does the world a disservice (User: Ty McDowell, 01.17.2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.233.196 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am recommending this category be eliminated. I will add my recent debate with Schlier22:

A justification of the category "Italian Roman Catholics" You wrote to me: "I want to question the utility of even having this category. Specifically I object to making such a category and including Italians from Rome from the 16th and 17th century. Is there a category of Italians from Rome in those centuries who were not Roman Catholics?? Someone listed both Gianlorenzo Bernini and Michelangelo in this category, why? What else could Michelangelo have been? I think this category is exceedingly redundant when applied to Italians of those centuries. I question if it has any informative value. Nearly all Italians living in Rome in the 16th century were Catholic. It would be more interesting to make a list of those who weren't. I challenge you to find any. Ultimately, I believe that the category will be either deleted or many names, such as those above, pruned from the list. CARAVAGGISTI 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Schlier22"

1. Utility does not determine whether or not the designation of a person under a category is appropriate. There is especially no reason to proscribe the assignment of what may seem to be obvious, implied, or redundant categories to those individuals whose historical or cultural situatedness make their assignment to those categories obvious, implied, or redundant.

2. You challenged me to present exceptions to your absolutist conjecture that "all Italians living in Rome in the 16th century were Catholic." Exhibit A: Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who was condemned as a heretic by Catholic authority. Since convicted heresy implies excommunication, Bruno was ipso facto a non-Catholic.

3. I am reassigning the category "Italian Roman Catholics" to all those persons who are or were in fact Italian Roman Catholics. I have proven with the example of Bruno that a "16th century Italian, Roman Catholic person" is not tautologous. Hence, the categorization of certain 16th century Italians as "Italian Roman Catholics" has at least some informative value.

4. If you or others either delete the category or prune persons from it who properly belong to it, I will report this issue to the wikipedia authorities for arbitration. -Schlier22 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CARAVAGGISTI"

Response to #1) A category that states "Italians in Rome in the 16th century" is nearly as obvious as "humans with two arms and ten fingers". Of course there are "exceptions". One could say that Italian "Jews" were not catholic, or muslim slaves in Rome were not Catholic, but one could also say that they are ethnically different than what we consider as "Italian". Again I do think a useless category is useless.

1. 2)Giordano Bruno was catholic till he was excommunicated. He becomes Schrödinger's cat. In addition, an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic but only one living in a more tropical eternity (as well as transition). To correct Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" routine, a dead parrot is still a parrot, and not an ex-parrot or a former parrot. Again, you might have said that Jews in Rome were non-Catholic Italians, but I think they would have considered themselves non-Catholic Jews in Rome, not Italians; at least in the 16th century.

1. 3) See above. Giordano Bruno was a former Catholic, even as the pope was burning him up. Maybe the only Giordono Bruno that belongs into the category: Italian Roman Catholics booted out or burned out or ex-Roman Catholics. That category is interesting.

1. 4) I will save you the effort and alert others, so that we can come to a moderated consensus. Alas, Giordano Bruno must be shaking his head somewhere, saying they are still fighting about this...CARAVAGGISTI 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

First, I should note that I've further contributed to the question of the legitimacy of the category "Italian Roman Catholics" on Michelangelo's discussion section. It is there that I express my concerns over the agnostic stance of contemporary historical scholarship and its tendency to whitewash the religiosity of persons of history.

Now allow me to reply to Caravaggisti's responses to my original points.

1. I don't know why you bring up the hypothetical category "Italians in Rome in the 16th century." First, such a category is entirely immaterial to the present discussion. And second, it is far from an obvious category, unless one were foolish enough to confuse Rome with Italy. Either you succeeded in making a point, and the point is irrelevant; or you miserably failed to make a point which could very well have been relevant. In either case, you are confused.

2. An excommunicated Roman Catholic is no longer a Roman Catholic, for the simple reason that it belongs to the Church of Rome to ultimately determine whether or not a person is in fact a Roman Catholic, and the Church of Rome uses excommunication as its way of making it the case that a person no longer is a Roman Catholic. Schrodinger's cats and parrots be damned: an excommunicated Catholic is ipso facto no longer a Catholic. Such a person may have been a Roman Catholic, but clearly no longer is a Roman Catholic. Do you understand that, or are you incapable of comprehending tensed facts? And just to point out: a dead parrot is still a parrot, so long as it died a parrot. But if it died a cat instead of a parrot--having been changed into a cat by mad scientists during its lifetime--it is no longer a parrot, because that animate entity which died is not a parrot but a cat.

3. You wrote: "Giordano Bruno was a former Catholic, even as the pope was burning him up. Maybe the only Giordono Bruno that belongs into the category: Italian Roman Catholics booted out or burned out or ex-Roman Catholics." The second sentence is completely unintelligible. As to the first, I agree that Bruno was a former Catholic, which is why it would make sense to categorize him as such as opposed to an Italian Roman Catholic.

4. Thanks. -Schlier22 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• You have an agenda.
• Take it up with an administrator. I am up to the challenge.
• Also, is baby Giordano Bruno worth including into the category of Italian Roman Catholics?

I'm sorry I can't add more to the discussion; I am traveling to a select convention held only for people who clap with two hands. One hand clappers need not apply. In addition you need to have a belly button to be in this club.CARAVAGGISTI 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way, non-catholics were more tolerated in other northern "Italian" states than they were in Rome. Slavs and Greeks were common in Venice. My understanding is by the late-1600s, protestant pamphlets could be published from Venice. However, the same rules would not have applied to the Papal states (and Rome) where Bernini and Michelangelo lived for much of their lives. Again, I still think even in 17th century Venice, the number of non-catholic "Italians" was negligible. CARAVAGGISTI 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone should be categorised on the same basis. Accepting a comprehensive set of by-religion categories prevents potentially endless debates about which ones to keep and which ones to delete. Piccadilly 13:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the much needed "air-breathing humans" category? Coward Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.107.92 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)