Vatican To Be Grilled By UN On Allegations It Enabled Rape Of Children
Source: Associated Press
The Vatican is gearing up for a bruising showdown over the global priest sex abuse scandal, forced for the first time to defend itself at length and in public against allegations it enabled the rape of thousands of children by protecting pedophile priests and its own reputation at the expense of victims.
The Holy See on Thursday will be grilled by a U.N. committee in Geneva on its implementation of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Among other things, the treaty calls for signatories to take all appropriate measures to protect children from harm and to put children's interests above all else.
The Holy See ratified the convention in 1990 and submitted a first implementation report in 1994. But it didn't provide progress reports for nearly a decade, and only submitted one in 2012 after coming under criticism following the 2010 explosion of child sex abuse cases in Europe and beyond.
Victims groups and human rights organizations rallied together to press the U.N. committee to challenge the Holy See on its abuse record, providing written testimony from victims and evidence outlining the global scale of the problem. Their reports cite case studies in Mexico and Britain, grand jury investigations in the U.S., and government fact-finding inquiries from Canada to Ireland to Australia that detail how the Vatican's policies, its culture of secrecy and fear of scandal contributed to the problem.
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/vatican_un_child_protection
Good
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)This will answer a lot of questions about whether Francis is going to really change things or just carry on the same horseshit. Pope Rat would never have agreed to show up and if he did it would have been non-stop evasion and excuses.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Those who committed the acts and those who covered them up
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)to face charges, but to be honest, no American prosecutors has the balls to go after the church.
Imagine what would have happened if a chain of day care centers did what the Catholic church did and the CEO and middle management covered it up. They would have been prosecuted under the RICO statutes.
Organized religion is pretty much immune to justice.
hue
(4,949 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Phil's dead. You could always go piss on his grave I suppose.
hue
(4,949 posts)The Catholic church institutionalized child abuse cover up. It was their standard practice. It was a part of being accepted in monasteries and abbeys. There is documentation of this but much has been/is hidden or destroyed.
Read the novel, "The Name of the Rose."
For example, Canada had/has unearthed major child abuse evidence in their orphanages and other Catholic institutions.
The known/acknowledged cases world wide are just the tip of the iceberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country
niyad
(113,532 posts)
calimary
(81,441 posts)He owes everybody a LOT of answers.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)has been a shortage of priests because boys do not want to join the ministry and as we see for good reason. They once talked about allowing women into the ministry but that went nowhere.
Then of course there is the doctrine that will not allow marriage of priests and while that is not the whole problem it would help the situation somewhat.
There is also the problem of the power struggle that would develop over the needed changes which could divide the church at the very time they are trying to get other church bodies to unite with them.
I am glad the UN is handling this because it is worldwide. Time to face the real shame of the church head on. It needs to be stopped.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I agree completely. 
Julie
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)That is a fallacy. There are married priests but few. That policy is tradition not Cannon law.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)They were not having an easy time of it and most were released from the priesthood. Either way it is still a tradition that has not changed for years. Are you saying that it is being changed?
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)If they were a minister in a protestant religion and then converted and were already married it is allowed. I had a married priest just a few years ago. Also theOrthodox allow priests to marry. It is just Roman tradition not the Magesterium.
broadcaster75201
(387 posts)The Catholic Church is the largest criminal organization in the World. The Pope's statements that seem "new" or "enlightened" mean nothing. They should be prosecuted pursuant to RICO and their assets should be confiscated.
But hey, some people will love a child raping, myth believing cult of horror until the day they die.
niyad
(113,532 posts)niyad
(113,532 posts). . .
The U.N. committee, which is composed of independent experts, not other U.N. member states, will issue its final observations and recommendations Feb. 5. The recommendations are not binding and the committee has no ability to sanction the Vatican for any shortcomings. Rather, the process is aimed at encouraging — and occasionally shaming — treaty signatories into abiding by their international commitments.
. . .
The committee had also asked the Holy See to provide detailed information on all cases of abuse that were brought to its attention — a number the Vatican has acknowledged tops 4,000.
But in its written response to the committee submitted last month, the Vatican declined to provide such information and ducked many of the committee's questions. It argued that it was not responsible for the actions of every Catholic, much less every priest or parish in the world. It says it is really only responsible for implementing the U.N. treaty where it exercises territorial control: the 44 hectares (110 acres) of the Vatican City State in downtown Rome, where 31 children currently live.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)'Church'. They would have been stopped in their tracks at the first killing. There would have been no Holy Wars, no Burning Years, no Inquisition. There would be no Vatican City, paved in gold. There would be a billion people alive today living, instead of waiting to live after they are 'saved'.
At least the U.N. is making the attempt.
I work on an issue that is constantly shoved down and out of the public eye: space-based weaponry and its' effect on the human mind. Or, using our brains as weapons. The polite diss is to call us the 'tinfoil' crowd. We received a complaint form last summer from the U.N., a fellow there who works on torture. It was the first public acknowledgement of any kind. Amnesty International knows, but won't push for an investigation. Kennedy knew, but put hearings off. Kucinich knew, but had to take out the 'effect on human brainwaves' part of his bill to get it heard. I have a real fine letter from Glenn, "thanks for your research". POS. He was on the Intelligence Comm and could have done something. The full congress knows, but if the public can't or won't deal with it, who cares? Remember the Navy Yard 17? No? You're kidding me. The real killer still is out there. People want to point the finger at the Church (me too), but when scandal is under their thumbs, perhaps slightly out of their 'power to correct' zone, they walk away, some mocking. (See the dark age populace).
I applaud the U.N.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You must understand the geography of Rome and what the Ancient Romans called "Latium" and what till the 1800s was called the "Papal States". This is the richest agricultural area in Europe. It has very good soil, and gets plenty of rain and is far enough south to have two crops per year. Greece has poor soil, Spain has huge areas of marginal lands do to almost desert conditions (Spain is to wide to get constant rainfall in its interior, unlike Italy). Southern Italy and Spain suffer from the fact they are to far south, rains do NOT go west to east so rains do further north, but instead you get near tropical conditions in the Summer, i.e .almost no rain fall if you are to far from the coast, and 20 miles may be to far.
The Alps does two things, first it blocks most cold weather from Italy, directing it to the Balkans instead, thus the second thing the Alps do is make the Balkans colder so most of the Balkans are NOT two crops per year areas.
Thus Latium was the key to the foundation of the Roman Empire. Rome had access to more resources then any other city state in the Ancient World and that slowly built up into the Roman Empire.
In many ways, Rome fell for the same reason we are having economic problems today, the Rich wanted more and wanted the poor to pay for it. When the poor could no longer pay, the Rich looked elsewhere to pay for maintaining the government that protected their riches and invited in the barbarian invaders to keep down the 99%. After a few generation the Barbarians realized they had more in common with the 99% then with the Roman 1% and slowly took the remaining land from the Roman 1% (Thus no family in Europe can trace they family, through the MALE Line prior to Charlemagne, this took place in the 800s and 900s but it did occur).
While the Roman 1% tied themselves up with what we now call the Byzantine Empire, the majority of Romans tied themselves up with the Christian Church. THe Barbarians came to be seen as local war lords NOT legitimate leaders, but the Parish Priest came to be seen as the local political leader, tied in with the Central Government in Rome. This is why the Dark Ages and Middle Ages were so hang up on heretics, heretics represented someone who rejected the GOVERNMENT most people supported. i.e. the Christian Church, even if the heretics had support of the local warlords.
Now, come the Reformation, a different set of dynamics come into play. Urban areas become more important during the High Middle ages and along with the raise of the cities came the raise of what we now call the "Upper Middle Class", those people NOT in the top 1% but in the top 10% of the economy. They wanted control of the Government that most affected them and that was the Catholic Church NOT the secular government, Thus these Upper Middle Class people started the Reformation to take land and power from the Catholic Church and give it to themselves. Secular leaders embraced this movement on the ground it weakened their main local opposition, the Catholic Church (and permitted them to give Church land to their supporters without having to pay the church for those lands, i.e such landowners would become hard core opponents of the Catholic Church for they believed since the land their own was stolen from the Church, if the Catholic Church ever came back into power it would demand the return of those stolen lands. this was true even when the Catholic Church ended back in power, for example under Queen Mary of England, and refused to take back those lands).
Now, Spain and the Inquisition was slightly different. Spain had first fell to the Goths as Rome Fell, then fell to the Moors. The Moslem Conquest was more facial then deep, the Moors ruled, but most people stayed Catholic. The Moors accepted this for they really had not choice, if they order all non-moslems out, they would be no one to do the farm work. Thus after the Conquest of Spain in 750, the reconquest of Spain started and lasted till the 1300s. During the reconquest the reverse did not come up, i.e Moslem Farmers and Catholic Rulers till the reconquest ended in the 1300s when Granada accepted the over-lordship of Castile. This remained the situation till 1492 when "King" Isabella (Isabella on monuments of her time period is NEVER portrayed as "Regina" Latin for "Queen", but as "Rex" Latin for "King". Isabella's marriage to Ferdinand of Aragon (out of which modern Spain was born) did NOT change her designation the Monuments where marked "Rex Isabella and Ferdinand" (Yes, Isabella was always First).
Anyway, the conquest of Granada was to make Spain a united country for the first time since Roman Times (Only Portugal would remain outside of Spain and then only till the 1581, then regain its independence in 1640). After the Conquest Moslems were permitted to stay in Granada, which technically remained an independent nation but with Isabella and Ferdinand as its king. Moslems had three choices, go with their former Emir to Morocco, Convert to Catholicism or remain Moslem and stay in Spain. If they remain Moslem, they were subject to expulsion and were later on expelled in 1614. AS Moslems who never adopted Christianity they were NOT subject to the Inquisition.
The jurisdiction of the Inquisition was reserved to Christians. Unconverted Jews and Moslems were NOT subject to the Inquisition. The problem was the Jews and Moslem who did convert. As Christians they were subject to the Inquisition.
Now, most American History mentioned the Reconquest and the Inquisition, more with the Protestants dealing with the Inquisition (as Questions Protestants were under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition) then the Jewish and Moslems and the Inquisition. The main reason for this is you have to understand international situation in the 1500s. Spain did NOT stop with Granada, Spain continued its war against the Moors by attacking Algeria and even Tunisia (and had problems with Morocco where the last Emir of Granada went to live (and later died). During these wars, Spain was also fighting France in Italy (Thus the Spanish Amanda was less to conquer England then to return England to its traditional alliance with Spain, an alliance that would return in 1808 when Napoleon would invade Spain).
In short the Inquisition was looking for any potential internal enemy of Spain at a time when Spain did not legally exist. Spain did not legally exist till 1814, prior to that what we call Spain was the Kingdoms of Aragon, Castile, Granada and Leon, united by two things, that all ere ruled by the same monarchs AND the Catholic Church. Thus any attack on the Catholic Church was viewed as an attack on the monarch and treated as treason. Even today, Spain is the least centralized state in Western Europe, even Germany which technically is a federalization gives more power to the Central Government then the present Spanish Constitution.
In many ways Spain retained the dual government system of the Dark ages (Barbarian and Catholic being the two governments) till the 1700s, when under the Bourbon Kings Spain reduced the role of the Catholic Church (and that reduction lead to the subsequent independence movement in Latin America, for it was the Catholic Church holding the empire together NOT the Spanish monarchs and clearly NOT Spain).
Thus the issue of the "conversos" came up, who were they loyal to? Spain did NOT officially exist so that was never an option. Each of the Kingdoms that made up Spain only came into play when local politics was in play, thus in international relations the issue was in open question. As Catholic Monarchs, Catholic had to support the King, but could non-Catholics? What about the continued wars in North Africa and the Moors? Thus the Inquisition was founded to find out the loyalty of the people of Spain. IT was a STATE INSTITUTION run by Catholic Priests, but whose authority derived from the King of Spain NOT the Pope, IT was a search for people who were disloyal to the monarchs of Spain and that means anyone who was NOT Catholic but passed himself or herself as a Catholic.
This came up in a case in the late 1500 a person was arrested for being a Secret Moslem who had converted to Catholicism. He was taken to the Inquisition and declared flat out he was a Moslem and had NEVER converted. The Inquisition had to release him, for they had no jurisdiction over him as a non-Christian. This also happened to Jews who could show they never converted.
Thus the test was less a religious test, then a loyalty test, a loyalty test in a time of war. Who would you support? Your Catholic Leader or your Moslem Leaders? In Spain prior to 1614 there was no other choice.
I went into the above to show that the Church would NOT have been Stopped in its tracks, for it represented the Roman Empire after its collapse in the West. The Church Continued to do so in Northern Europe till the Reformation, In Spain the Church Continued to do so (and in many ways still does) represent that dual ruling system (The Adoption of Public School Systems in the 1800s did weaken the Church's rule, for education prior to 1800s was reserved to the Church. One of the reason for the take over of this function was to make the State Stronger then the Church).
Other factors also kicked in in the 1800s to weaken the Church. for example Newspapers. Prior to about 1850, most people obtain they news by going to church and hearing what the local minister or priest said was the news. Pulp Paper had NOT been invented till 1801 and not into widespread use till the 1840s, thus papers before about 1850 were printed as advertising first, the front page was nothing but advertising (that did not change till the US Civil Wars, when paper found out they could sell more papers if it had a headline about the war). Thus prior to about 1840 papers were printed on linen paper, while cheaper then parchment, still expensive, to expensive to be used as paper to be thrown away after just one person read it. Thus papers prior to about 1850 were printed to be read over and over again and when someone was done with it, read by another. Linen paper were also use to made copies of things sent to local parishes for the local Minster or Priest to read to the public.
Pulp Paper permitted mass printing on paper that were intended to be read only once. Thus you had a way to get a message to the people without going through the local Priest or Minister. It was this ability, that Constantine embraced Christianity, for it permitted hm to get messages down to the people, and the people to get what they wanted up to him without doing a peasant revolt. This ability was the main reason religion was so important till the 1800a, more as a communication system then anything else (and another reason control over such systems were fought over, for the same reason the US destroyed Radio and Television Stations in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he who controls the news, controls the people). In many ways, the papacy still retains this ability given its world wide reach (In the July 20th Plot to kill Hitler, the Protestant leaders of the plot all contacted the Catholic Church for support, for the Catholic Church in Germany retain much of its communication system, including sending messages from one parish to another and to and from Rome and it was to get this communication system the Plotters wanted, before they could access it, the plot was smashed and the plotters killed, but it shows you that the communication system still exists).
I wrote the above, for with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, something like the Catholic Church would have arose. The peasants, the 99%, wanted to belong to something larger then they local village and the pagan religious could NOT do that. With the destruction of the Roman Army (mostly do to lack of funds) the Roman Army and the whole Imperial Structure could Not have survived. At the same time the 99% had come to count on it, and into that void stepped in the Catholic Church. Heretics were viewed not as people who believe in other forms of God, but as traitors to the Roman Imperial Traditions and treated as traitors not heretics. All societies tend to kill off traitors, or watch them prevail and kill off the people they defeat as traitors. The various killings done in the name of the Church from 305 till 1700 were more in this line then actual religious disputes. The rapid decline of heretics being burned, came as the cost of increase numbers of traitors getting their head cut off. Some ways that is an improvement, but in other it is not (especially if you considered that it was easier to avoid being burned as a heretic then it is to escape execution as a traitor).
Yes, you are correct, we would have less "Holy Wars, no Burning Years, no Inquisition" instead we would have more "Revolts", more "Riots" more "Reign of Terrors", more "Red Baiting", more "Purges", more "Night of Long Knives", "Wars on Labor", More "Peasant revolts" (maybe even more Slave Revolts, through what is a "Slave Revolt" and a "Peasant Revolt" is often a question of degree as opposed to anything real, more "wars of Liberation" More "War to make you Free" etc.
hue
(4,949 posts)The Vatican is a tremendously wealthy (if we include it's world wide real estate holdings, treasures & archives, libraries, schools etc.) tax exempt sovereign state with "missions" in almost every country in the world!
It has gotten away with inquisitions, propaganda, routine rapes/sodomy, undermining/dehumanizing of women etc.
It's beyond time for the poor Catholic sheeple to wake up!!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The Vatican, Talibart or whatever bogeyman one wants to select to vent their outrage upon, is the tip of the iceberg. We are more enraged as it is a 'western' institution.
But the sexual abuse of children is worldwide, it is a question more of impoverishment than religion. We had the FBI report of how austerity in the USA is leading to the sale of children and infants for sex. That is the state of the world.
It seems someone is always getting off the hook, and I don't hold much hope until world is united against it. Now we have our own Christianist culture being built, if not already in plaxe in private that condones child rape by forced marriage.
I'm not defending the RCC whose abuses we know in horrifying detail. As we know it best, we hate it the worst. The UN shouldn't stop there, but I'm betting they will.
