Vatican Youtube Channel

This could get interesting!

There is now a Vatican YouTube Channel.

Here is a first offering:

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in LIVE STREAMING, SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Vatican Youtube Channel

  1. Terth says:

    Father, from what I’ve heard, you cannot embed the Vatican YouTube channel’s postings. Your attempt to do so here didn’t work for me. Maybe others had better luck – or you really can’t embed.

  2. A Random Friar says:

    Yeah, Amy Welborn mentioned the same thing on her blog, about how the Vatican has it backwards: allowing comments and disabling embedding. Sheesh.

  3. They want all the traffic and they are afraid of what sites will take their videos.

    This is the usual Vatican fear when it comes to technology.

    “YESTERDAY’S TECHNOLOGY TOMORROW!” is their cry!

  4. Emilio III says:

    Embedding seems to be working fine now.

  5. Alan F. says:

    I’ve invited the Vatican to my friends list! :) I don’t think they’ve approved it though.

  6. Alan F. says:

    The site says they’ve had this channel sinse 05 June 2008, even though they’re reporting this to be a new thing. Odd.

  7. Josephus muris saliensis says:

    All works fine. Mozilla does a good plug-in thing called Downloadhelper which downloads FLV files (ie Utoob {come si dica negli Stati Uniti}), and converts to WMV or MP4.

    They have had good archive files up on the Vatican website/Osservatore Romano for a while (incl amazing footage of Leo XIII), hopefully these will soon all be widely available.

  8. SC says:

    Technical stuff aside, I think this is wonderful! I just returned from my first trip to Rome, and this is just what the doctor ordered. I am so proud (and humbled) to be Catholic. What a great new way to reach the world with truth and beauty!

  9. A Random Friar says:

    Ah yes, they fixed the embedding. Excellent!

  10. Josephus muris saliensis says:

    On another technical matter, without wishing to be pedantic, I think it reasonable to take exception to expressions such as “Sheesh”. This is a variant of Geez, which is an abbreviation of Jesus: calling upon Our Lord’s Holy Name. It thus falls into the category of “Bloody (“by Our Lady”); “Zounds” (“by His Wounds”); “Hocus Pocus” (Hoc est enim Corpus meum”); etc.

    These are Blasphemies, and have no place here.

    I am sure it was not meant malevolently, but these are public pages, and one should be careful.

  11. Jenny says:

    Are they still blasphemies if one has no idea of their origin?
    I think that intention would count for something.
    But maybe I’m wrong.

  12. I am glad that the Holy See is using YouTube. It is a good way to reach out the where people are and share the Gospel with them. May God bless all their good works.

  13. Andrew, UK and sometimes Canada says:

    Nice. Looks professionally done. And, without reading too much into it, the only discernable view of a Mass from the pew vantage point is of the EF!

    Let’s hope they start putting a back catalogue of stuff on there. Perhaps even some footage from the good old days :)

  14. Josephus muris saliensis says:

    Indeed Jenny, but now you do know. That is the reason for fraternal correction, not condemnation.

  15. Lori Ehrman says:

    I hope the Holy Father gets a Facebook too. Father Z do you have a FB?

  16. A Random Friar says:

    Josephus: Merriam-Webster has the origin of “sheesh” at 1972, which seems a little late to be the same root, though not to say someone couldn’t use it thusly. Also, onlineslangdictionary.com seems to think it’s a euphemism for something else (even being used by Kermit the Frog on Sesame Street) as does dictionary.com. American Heritage agrees with you, but does not give a date.

    NOW it’s pedantic. :)

  17. Josephus muris saliensis says:

    O Random Friar, I fail to comprehend the timing argument of your first sentence. Clearly a derivative must post-date the original. Several etymologies I find online agree with what I had always understood to be the case.

    It is clear many people come from a more liberal background than one is accustomed to. A thousand lines, a visit to the headmaster and a letter to one’s parents would accompany the use of “bloody” in an English school, whether one understood its derivation or not.

    If you are truly a friar in fact as well as name, I would counsel playing safe with
    the 10 Commandments!

  18. A Random Friar says:

    Just meaning to bring up an oldy but goody, really: “presume the good” when there’s room for doubt, especially about intent. But thank you for your counsel; it is well taken.

  19. A Random Friar says:

    One thing that just came to mind. The original use of the word “nice” came from “necius” (still in Spanish as “necio,” meaning “fool” or “ignoramus,” basically.) It changed to the sort of way we use “silly” to lovingly describe a child, then to our more modern usages. However, the word is so changed that you can’t even begin to make the case that it’s an insult now. I do think that certain words change enough over time to obscure any trace of their intent, especially if there can be confusion of their root. Much as evolution presents several arisals of the power of flight from unrelated animals, even if they serve the same function. The same word in one language can have two different roots (“alto” in Spanish is both from Latin and German, for example, and I’m sure English has many such words).

  20. Paule says:

    Let’s pray for this wonderful venture. There is so much junk on the Catholic Church on youtube, it’s pathetic. This is a ray of light out there for those of good will. I will pray for this daily, for St. Michael the ArchAngel to defend and protect this initiative.

  21. Breier says:

    Josephus,

    With words, convention is everything. The examples you’ve cited have entirely lost whatever original significance they had, they don’t call to mind any of the examples you cite; they have absolutely no religious significance whatsover, and the words themselves have no religious meaning. Arguing about ancient derivications is a lost cause.

    If you want to be truly offended, how about French Canadian swearing? I think your concern is much more relevant there.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401286.html