Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

The United Nations vs The Vatican...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 110 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 6 Feb 2014 07:59:32 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 6 Feb 2014 08:49:17 GMT
Garscadden says:
I thought it was the Vatican/Holy See (the sovereign entity), that they are taking to task, not the Catholic Church. I guess the Holy See could renounce it's UN position (it's only an observer state isn't it), and then the UN would only be criticising an organisaiton that was not a member.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 08:52:12 GMT
Bearman says:
The Vatican has placed itself, and the members of the Catholic Church above the law, and its paedophile priests above the children who are the victim of those priests. I sincerely hope that all member nations of the UN, back up this report and each nation demands that the Vatican releases the requested information and every paedophile priest/ex-priest is extradited to the country where they committed their crimes, and are publicly tried and convicted, and then sent to prison to face the treatment all paedophiles get in prison. I also really don't care how old those priests are.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 09:46:34 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Feb 2014 09:49:00 GMT
The UN has a legal right to enforce the laws that all members nations have agreed to. Since you ask.

Now, what right do you have to repeatedly presume to speak for "secularists" of which you claim not to be one?

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 09:53:21 GMT
I wholeheartedly concur. What's more I sincerely hope that if the un investigation uncovers any wrongdoing by the Vatican that charges appropriate to the relevant laws they have broken are brought against the people responsible. The church is just another organisation made up of men and women who are bound by the same laws as everyone else, and should behave and be treated as such.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 09:58:33 GMT
Bearman says:
I completely agree - for far too long, the Vatican/RCC and other churches/religions have enjoyed a completely unjustified privileged position with regard to national laws (and tax status). The sooner this is ended the better.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 10:36:46 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 10:39:07 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 10:49:57 GMT
Bearman says:
As a sovereign state, it should be treated in the same way Iraq and Libya were treated: invaded, and the tyrannical leader deposed. Teams could then be sent in to examine the Vatican records to determine who and where the paedophile priests are, and then justice be done. Its only fair. Think of the children Spun, think of the children.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:05:12 GMT
Anita says:
Spin - "Forgiveness is the essence of their faith and creed." Well - true. In theory. One of many examples how theory and reality go their different ways. And - something you should know, I believe - even Christianity does *not* advocate forgiveness for everything.

Any institution, I think, be it religious or secular, should co-exist with the surrounding world. If it wants to be above the international law, it should also renounce any rights or privileges. In other words, it should find some uninhabited island for itself and rot there

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:05:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Feb 2014 11:06:39 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:08:57 GMT
Dr Sheldon Cooper phd says: "The UN has a legal right to enforce the laws that all members nations have agreed to..."

I believe, Doc, that it is more than that. I think it has a duty to do so. It is required to be proactive in such matters.

Posted on 6 Feb 2014 11:09:47 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Feb 2014 11:10:48 GMT
Dan Fante says:
You'd have to be either on the wind-up, an idiot (or possibly both) to argue that a request to remove known or suspected child abusers amongst the clergy is about revenge. The same applies to arguing that any recalcitrance in response to such a request is about 'forgiveness'.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:12:38 GMT
Garscadden says:
The Vatican / Holy See as a state and the Vatican as seat of the Catholic church are not the same thing. One is a political and diplomatic entity, one is religious.

As a state, and a permanent observer of the UN they have obligations. I would assume that the position could be relinquished at will, in which case they would not have any requirement to comply.

The cost of being a political / diplomatic entity with UN status is that they have to comply with UN rules. The advantages are many and, I'd assume, worth the hassle (hence the multitude of small organisations that are always trying to attain this status at reasonably high cost and often physical risk).

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:15:52 GMT
Dan Fante says:
If it was still part of Italy it would have to undergo the same financial scrutiny and comply with the same regulations as the rest of the EU. I would imagine this has some bearing on their desire to remain autonomous.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:25:42 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:44:50 GMT
Bearman says:
When did I claim to be making a political argument? I have a hatred for paedophiles, and I'm disgusted at how the church has protected them. I am for any and all legal means to be used to make those paedophiles face justice.

Forgiveness should only ever be a personal choice - an individual victim can forgive their abuser. The idea of the church forgiving those priests is sickening in the extreme.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:45:02 GMT
Garscadden says:
If i were more prone to conspiracy I'd imagine that it is the diplomatic rules and access that is the big deal. Diplomatic status allows for all kinds of rule avoidance, up to and including repatriation.

Financial considerations may actually be easier to handle if they weren't a state. I imagine a number of banking systems would love to assist the Vatican bank within the constraints of an offshore confidential fiscal system.

Luxembourg would probably be up for it. The Pope gets his personal guard from Switzerland, maybe the Swiss would offer some help. There are a couple of Caribbean islands which may be happy to step in and help. If the bank were seperated from the state it just may get less scrutiny.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:49:05 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Given you rarely answer straightforward questions relating to things you have posted on here perhaps you'll forgive my reticence in justifying to you things that I haven't typed.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:55:11 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I'm sure the diplomatic status is a big deal in most cases, like when a country is gaining independence after a civil war, for example. Not that diplomatic status won't be important here too. But, realistically, if it wasn't independent, which country could it be part of other than Italy? I would have thought (although I'm not an expert) that this would bring scrutiny from within the EU which simply doesn't exist at the minute (by not being subject to EU laws). What's to stop them from ferreting funds away in the Cayman Islands or whatever already? How do we know this isn't already happening?

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 11:58:48 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 12:04:23 GMT
Bearman says:
Of course the church has been protecting paedophiles you dimwit. There are hundreds of cases where paedophile priests have been removed from a parish following abuse claims in an attempt to protect the church's reputation, only to place them into a new parish where their crimes were unknown, enabling them to continue their abuse. The Vatican has withheld the records of these actions. If you don't think that is the church protecting paedophiles, then you probably need to up your medication.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2014 12:19:57 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 6 Feb 2014 12:22:16 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 6 Feb 2014 12:36:45 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xa6290234)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  110
Initial post:  6 Feb 2014
Latest post:  10 Feb 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions