Church Records in Siracusa

[brogie62]

The church records from the Archdiocese of Catania have long been available at FamilySearch.org and viewable at home, not just at a FHC. However the church records of the Archdiocese of Siracusa are not only not available digitally, they are not available on microfilm either.

Does anyone know why this is or if they are available elsewhere? (Other than, of course, at the parish churches themselves.)

Thanks,
Kevin

[adelfio]

A lot of Italian church records are not filmed yet its possible in the future they will be recorded.
You can email familysearch.org and see if they are planning in the future to film the Archdiocese of Siracusa or individual towns of that province.
Might have to hire a researcher to find the church you need find your family records (usually in earlier civil records 1861 and below they sometimes show the church parish on the right side of the record which you can check)

Marty

[brogie62]

Thanks Marty. I do know the towns and parishes I need. One is Avola which has been filmed but is not available digitally. The others are Palazzolo Acriede, Canicattini Bagna and Cassaro.

I have plenty of other research to do right now so can wait to see what develops.

Thanks again,
Kevin

[Italysearcher]

The Dioceses in Lazio are very opposed to putting records on line although some are digitizing them for research at the Diocese offices only.
The Catania records were done in 1991, maybe they didn't realize fully what they were agreeing to.

[erudita74]

The only church records for Siracusa Province online at familysearch.org are for the town of Sortino in that province. The parish is San Giovanni Apostolo ed Evangelista.

Erudita

[brogie62]

The Dioceses in Lazio are very opposed to putting records on line although some are digitizing them for research at the Diocese offices only.
The Catania records were done in 1991, maybe they didn't realize fully what they were agreeing to.

I personally cannot understand why some are opposed to putting centuries old records online. I can understand making sure that no records of the living are available, but the records of the deceased cannot do any harm.

Perhaps those in the Archdiocese of Catania were not fully aware. On the other hand they just could have been ahead of their time. Either way I am thankful they did.

Kevin

[aledeniz]

I am afraid I will have to bring you bad news.
My understanding, from the news I have gathered over the years on the Italian media, is that unfortunately the Catholic church has banned from all the Italian diocesan archives the members or agents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of the Genealogical Society of Utah (AKA FamilySearch).
Apparently, and again this is my understanding, the Congregation for the Clergy has found an issue on the fact that FamilySearch may be used as a tool to enable "erroneous" LDS religious practices, therefore they referred this to the powerful Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), whose response was to enact a ban, which was communicated to all Italian dioceses with a note issued the 8th January 2009.
In practice, again my own understanding, it seems that their main issue is the practice of the baptism for the dead, which they see as an heretical practice.
I have thought a couple of times about writing to the CEI to ask them to remove the ban, as it is affecting a lot of people who have nothing to do with the LDS and their religious beliefs and practices, but I have desisted because I found completely unrealistic that I may have any chance to convince them to reverse their decision.
I haven't found a link to the CEI note enacting the ban, but I have found a news referencing that:
http://registriparrocchiali.weebly.com/ ... 12009.html

P.S.: I'd expect a CEI note to be recorded here: http://www.chiesacattolica.it/documenti-segreteria/ but weirdly I haven't found that. Their News index for January 2009 doesn't even have a single entry: http://www.chiesacattolica.it/documenti ... -cei-2009/

[brogie62]

Thank you Aledeniz. I hadn’t thoughts of that aspect. I still can’t quite digest the reasoning that since some may abuse something, no one should have it.