Who and what determines the UN’s business or jurisdiction? Unless I’m much mistaken, it’s the UN charter which every country signs when they choose to become part of the UN. To my knowledge, no country is forced to join or to sign any particular convention.
I join you in your prayers. Releasing the investigation report will bring peace to us all, knowing that all was done promptly to protect others from being abused.Yes I know
I was just trying to make the point that where “normal” confidentiality is concerned (ie you only break if someone’s life is in danger or legal/state/government request for legal proceedings and even then it’s tricky), you can’t just hand out information to any old party/organisation that asks for it. I was trying to say to the former poster that it isn’t about the church being open to the abuse that’s happened (instead of pushing it under the carpet so to speak), but about the church giving out confidential information to this organisation. You can be open about the abuse and not give out confidential information.I get the point you were making now. Still, why not simply redact personally identifiable information?Yes I know
Same way every knows the church has the sacrament of confession…but it is strictly confidential in every sense of the word.
I’m not convinced…which is why I brought up confession…getting am abuse victim to open up is difficult because of the trauma caused to them, all they want to do is hide and be protected…confidentiality gives this and is what they would expect…even with removal of names, it could lose the trust of those involved. Same way catholics expect confessions to be completely confidential.
I agree. Why give the information to that corrupt organization, the UN should not be throwing stones from that big ol’ glass house.I fail to see why the Vatican should share information on investigations and why the U.N. needs to have that information!?Investigations are exploring allegations, gathering facts, etc. When they are found to be credible and legal procedings take place, it is a matter of public record. The U.N. can find out when that happens like the rest of us. I don’t see what advantage anyone, including the UN could have in obtaining that information. As we know, not every allegation is true. I think the Vatican is doing the right thing by not giving that up.
In other words, throw the perverts to the dogs because they are beyond the possibility of redemption?
Again, the Church willingly participates with the UN and signed the Convention at the heart of this issue. Clearly it doesn’t unilaterally view the UN as “corrupt.”
The Church, which was supposedly concerned with the redemption of pedophile priests in the past, tried its own approach. We know how that turned out. Were priests guilty of engaging in torture, or guilty of crimes against humanity, would we advocate that the Church manage them without interference and not be held accountable for harboring these individuals and making it possible for them to re-offend?
And as the Vatican’s response letter stated, it does not question the UN’s jurisdiction in this matter with regard to the Vatican state. But the internal investigations conducted by the Vatican were not limited to the Vatican state. They included countries such as the US, which has not ratified this treaty. The treaty was ratified in the 1990s and the Vatican’s investigation covered a much larger span of time than that. This UN panel seems to be trying to get the Vatican to “rat” on other countries. Just look at the questions about Catholic schools and textbooks. And there is one question that basically asks if canon law has been changed. Since when does the UN have authority over canon law? The questions also specifically asked about other countries. That is beyond the scope of the UN and the Vatican’s responsibility under this treaty. If the UN wants information about what has been done in India or Ireland or the US, the panel should go there first. Then, if it appears that the Vatican has information to contribute, go to the Vatican with specific requests - not a fishing expedition.
Actually, the error of the Church regarding dealing with “pedophile” priests (a misnomer by the way) was to follow the prescriptions of “current secular knowledge” rather than listen to its own teachings. It got burned precisely because it trusted other voices rather than its own.
I’m not sure why this would need to be stated again but the Holy See signed off on this sort of inquiry when it signed the Convention. Other countries and institutions are beholden to the requirements set forth in the Convention, of which they were aware when they agreed to it, so I’ve no clue why the Vatican would be reticent to comply.
I know that story about “pedophilia” not being the appropriate term here and I’ll pass… But as to the heart of the matter, again, the Vatican willingly agreed to participate with the secular authority of the UN.
Careful now. That’s a description that’s eerily similar to those given of the Church by non-Catholics. Regardless of personal opinions of the UN, the Vatican seems to disagree at least in large part.
And if the UN requested disclosure of all confessions?
The quoted sections speak of furnishing information regarding implementation of the provisions of the convention. Where does it say that they are required to provide facts if specific cases to the UN? It says the committee may request further information. Does it say the state is required to provide each and every info requested? Including confidential information? There’s no such blanket requirement. The ratification alone does not translate into the kind of reach for the UN that you’re writing about here. The Vatican has supplied information regarding the measures it has taken. The extra information that is being requested is nowhere written about in the convention as you’re saying. If it is, then point it out please.
With respect, reported instances of sex abuse have plummeted since the early 80’s, and independent studies indicate that the rate of abuse is less than among school teachers in the U.S. So, I don’t think it’s fair to imply that the Church has demonstrably failed in recent years, or that it is particularly in need of oversight, when the current statistics show that instances of sex abuse by members of the clergy are fewer than even the general public.