Vatican refuses to share sex abuse investigations with U.N. panel

[Havard]

I agree with you there. Somehow the UN has become a favorite football for those who do not depend on its expertise and resources to find refuge from war, get food in times of famine, access basic health services, see justice done to war criminals and oversee elections so that most contemporary leaders don’t get to be “president for life”. And because of the UN, most leaders do not rob their citizens of rights, property and life with zero accountability even if that accountability sometimes equals a slap on the wrist…Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, for most of the developing world the UN serves these vital functions.

You mean like how they helped the Syrians?

Meanwhile, regarding the U.N. Peacekeeper sex scandals…

Soldiers serving the United Nations are subject to their own countries’ military justice. The only wrist slap often faced by contractors is being sent home, because they enjoy immunity as United Nations employees.

Soldiers linked to crimes are often repatriated. In April, 16 peacekeepers from Benin were sent home from Ivory Coast — more than a year after Save the Children U.K. found that the soldiers traded food for sex with poor, underage girls. More than 100 troops from Sri Lanka were sent home from Haiti in 2007 because of widespread accusations of sex with minors.

In many cases, however, the final outcome remains a mystery.

“The U.N. is not even a player in the investigation, doesn’t know the evidence and has no way to follow up with the way the military decides to deal with this issue,” Prince Zeid said. “We, the member states, have by and large failed to do what I had hoped we would do.”

The State Department’s 2010 report on human trafficking criticized the United Nations, saying, “No comprehensive information is available on the number of cases of disciplinary action.”

from The New York Times, 2011 “Peacekeepers’ Sex Scandals Linger, On Screen and Off”
nytimes.com/2011/09/08/world/08nations.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I suppose it depends on one’s definition of reasonable.

This is factually incorrect. As Seekerz noted, individual charities are certainly involved – but discounting the positive and very real impact of the UN (in terms of natural disasters, yes, but in many, many other issues, as well) is factually problematic.

Nothing’s a fact in politics and since its just my opinion it can’t be factually incorrect!

 

[seekerz]

Nothing’s a fact in politics and since its just my opinion it can’t be factually incorrect!

Politics? The functions of the UN can be factually ascertained with a simple Google search. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of record.

 

[seekerz]

You mean like how they helped the Syrians?

Meanwhile, regarding the U.N. Peacekeeper sex scandals…

Yes, like they*** are helping*** the Syrian refugees right this very moment. That they couldn’t do more is a function of the power of veto built into the UN and used by Russia and China to prevent meaningful action. Also note that the UN’s determination that WMDs had been used in Syria, propelled the deal to destroy their chemical weapons.

As for sex scandals, show me a country/party/organization that doesn’t have those. The UN employs human beings no?

 

[Corki]

Hypothetically, if this is the case, why, oh why did the Vatican agree to the Convention? It seems beyond implausible that it didn’t foresee this series of challenges.

Because agreeing to the convention did not mean they agreed to additional investigations beyond the scope of the convention.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Politics? The functions of the UN can be factually ascertained with a simple Google search. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of record.

I can do a google search which tells me the Catholic Church is a cult - is that factual? No…you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

The UN was initially set up after WWII to prevent another like it (with the wars happening…they aren’t doing a very good job) which is politics.

The functions of the UN are ofcourse facts, where in my post was I talking about specific functions. I was talking of what I see during disasters (my opinion) on TV. It was an observation that when these things happen, I see a lot of aid, but not much mention of UN

 

[georget]

Does the UN do good work? Yes, feeding those who need to be fed , passing out medicines to those who need them, etc. Should they sit in judgment of the Vatican under any circumstances? No. Just because you do good deeds, which by the way we all pay for, doesn’t give you the right to sit in judgment of others, especially when those doing the judging have dubious track records at best. Yes, if the UN was disbanded and a worldwide-wide organization could be assembled to distribute the foods, medicines and other necessities, the world would be better off, I for one am tired of sending money to a corrupt group of cats paws just to see it squandered by crooked politicians and their sycophants squandering the peoples contributions. I’m glad the Vatican won’t give them what they want and if it means breaking that treaty, so be it. God will judge the Vatican and those in it, not a group of prejudiced political hacks.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Well said

 

[gracepoole]

I can do a google search which tells me the Catholic Church is a cult - is that factual? No…you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

The UN was initially set up after WWII to prevent another like it (with the wars happening…they aren’t doing a very good job) which is politics.

The functions of the UN are ofcourse facts, where in my post was I talking about specific functions. I was talking of what I see during disasters (my opinion) on TV. It was an observation that when these things happen, I see a lot of aid, but not much mention of UN

Opinions can be uninformed – and by your own admission, yours is. I don’t mean to sound snarky but this isn’t something I’m normally proud of.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Opinions can be uninformed – and by your own admission, yours is. I don’t mean to sound snarky but this isn’t something I’m normally proud of.

I don’t get you…are you saying I’m proud I’m uniformed?

 

[gracepoole]

I don’t get you…are you saying I’m proud I’m uniformed?

That’s how it sounds. If I’m wrong, my most genuine apologies.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

That’s how it sounds. If I’m wrong, my most genuine apologies.

Well that’s a very bizarre thing to say…why would I be proud to be misinformed…me having an opinion of saying on tv I only ever see aid charities and the countries at play is neither misinformed or wrong. I haven’t actually stated anything wrong about the UN as I said I don’t know much about it, the thing I do know (which is factual to me) is when disasters happen, it’s not them I hear about on tv. I wasn’t saying they weren’t the ones organising it. Just that the world would survive if they didn’t and the buck passed to some else so to speak. I also know it was formed shortly after WW2 to stop another world war and I thought with all the wars happening they weren’t doing a brilliant job (that’s an opinion)…so I haven’t mentioned anything which is wrong or misinformed anyway.

Anyways I don’t normally talk politics so why I’m even discussing this I don’t know

 

[gracepoole]

Well that’s a very bizarre thing to say

It seems there is much here that’s bizarre.

I haven’t actually stated anything wrong about the UN as I said I don’t know much about it, the thing I do know (which is factual to me) is when disasters happen, it’s not them I hear about on tv.

That’s actually not how facts work. As you’ve already stated, this is an opinion of yours, not a fact. And it is misinformed as others have noted.

I wasn’t saying they weren’t the ones organising it.

That doesn’t seem to jibe with your earlier comment:

You are assuming its the UN that helps those in need. Whenever you hear of those horrible disasters and listen to the news, its particular charities and countries that go to their end…

Anyways I don’t normally talk politics so why I’m even discussing this I don’t know

Fair enough. Just trying to get clarity.

 

[Havard]

Yes, like they*** are helping*** the Syrian refugees right this very moment. That they couldn’t do more is a function of the power of veto built into the UN and used by Russia and China to prevent meaningful action. Also note that the UN’s determination that WMDs had been used in Syria, propelled the deal to destroy their chemical weapons.

Not getting your point… are you saying “better late than never”? Even the Secretary General admitted that the Syrians suffered unnecessarily due to the Russia & China circus.

As for sex scandals, show me a country/party/organization that doesn’t have those. The UN employs human beings no?

You think my point is that they had sex scandals? No… that’s not my point.

My point is that if The New York Times, which is far from anti-U.N. from editorial perspective, is reporting on their dereliction in investigating their own sex scandals, that they are probably not a very good organization to be investigating anyone else’s.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hypothetically, if this is the case, why, oh why did the Vatican agree to the Convention? It seems beyond implausible that it didn’t foresee this series of challenges.

The point being that even if the Vatican - as a political entity - agreed to the convention, it would seem unreasonable to infer that the terms of the agreement stretch beyond its status as a nation state to include all of its 1.2 billion members worldwide within it. Why should its existence as a “religious” entity necessarily be included in an agreement it signed as a political body? That simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Catholics all over the world belong to Catholicism as a body of believers. The executive that governs the Vatican as a state is not de facto the hierarchy that functions as the leadership of Catholicism as a religious entity, even if it is the same individuals who may formally do both. Catholics world wide do not view the Vatican as their “government” in the same way that they do their home state leadership.

Why would you insist that by signing an agreement with the UN, the Vatican has taken on the SAME role of political governance with regard to all of its 1.2 billion members that nation states do? A more reasonable assumption would be that a political role might be the case as far as representing those who live as citizens in the Vatican state itself, and to whom the terms of the agreement would apply, but there is no reason for assuming that every Catholic in every country of the world should politically be considered citizens of the Vatican and, thereby, also fall under the agreement.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am sorry if this question sounds absurd to some, but I am a relatively new Catholic and what disturbed me the most was when the Holy See declared itself separate from the roman catholic church. how can that be?

I am not a fan of the UN and I wish it could be abolished. surely the UN is aware of how the Roman Catholic Church has been dealing with the abuse cases over the past 10 years. it is pretty much public knowledge isn’t it? I am not sure for what purpose the UN is wanting to find out about the investigations.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am sorry if this question sounds absurd to some, but I am a relatively new Catholic and what disturbed me the most was when the Holy See declared itself separate from the roman catholic church. how can that be?

When and how was this done?

 

[JReducation]

And there we have it. Did the Holy See not think it would be held accountable according to the Convention it signed off on?

The United Nations has no jurisdiction to hold any country accountable for anything. It’s not another level of government. These are agreements, not laws.

The Holy See has not violated the rights of children. What it signed was a joint statement saying that children have certain rights. It stands by that statement.

It never signed an agreement saying that the United Nations has the right to investigate any country. We know that’s not the case. The UN proposes investigations into many matters. But the individual country retains its sovereignty. This sovereignty gives it the right to accept or reject UN proposals. The USA does it all the time. Why does the Vatican have to submit to a scrutinium by the UN? What makes the USA better than the Vatican?

As a Catholic, can you explain it? I can’t

As a Catholic I believe that in justice every nation is sovereign and its sovereignty includes the right to have its own form of due process and to carry it out according to its constitution, as long as that due process is just to all parties. The Church has its own constitution, which is as valid as that of the USA, Russian, UK, Iran, China or any other nation. If it’s constitution says that this information is only shared with its governmental counterparts in other nations, I think that in justice, Catholics should stand up behind the Vatican. Justice is for every nation, not for some.

I fail to understand why some of us who are Catholic are always the first to throw our Church under the bus, yet we stay with a Church toward which we feel hostility. Go figure.

 

[johnnyc176]

I fail to understand why some of us who are Catholic are always the first to throw our Church under the bus, yet we stay with a Church toward which we feel hostility. Go figure.

That’s because too many look at the Church’s teachings as political ideologies (e.g. liberal, conservative) instead of as the teachings of Jesus. Jesus and His Church, the Catholic Church, are One and the Same. I believe Catholics in any country should identify as Catholic first… Catholic American, Catholic Mexican, instead of the other way around.

 

[One_point]

I fail to understand why some of us who are Catholic are always the first to throw our Church under the bus, yet we stay with a Church toward which we feel hostility. Go figure.

Indeed, indeed! These people seem to think the Catholic Church has no rights and that secular political institutions are somehow more credible than their own church. What a shame! Shows you what religion people really are following in their hearts, contrary to their proclaimed faiths: loyalties tell you everything you need to know about anyone’s true “loves”. In this case it’s quite clear there are so-called Catholics who have very little affection for the church. They actually think the church should be forced to share confidential information just because some other organization asks.

Question: since when did the Catholic Church become an object of inquiry and scrutiny for the UN? This is very dangerous territory. It smells of a far-off persecution on its way. The UN doesn’t investigate religions, does it? If priests are committing violations against children, then guess what? Each priest is a citizen of some country with an obligation to punish crime. Let the UN ask those countries about steps they have taken to protect children from abusive priests, pastors, teachers, doctors and others. This manner of directly targeting a church for such a thing is going waaaaay too far into persecution territory. No wonder the vatican has refused. The Catholic Church has not signed any agreements with the UN. The UN is seeking to govern the Catholic Church, a religion, through the back door of the Vatican state. Shame on them! Let them stick to the nation state of the Vatican and leave the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ well alone!