Vatican Has Been Sued

[Darth Avlectus]

@GTA: I actually find myself agreeing with most of your points. The religion itself isn't bad, but the people are. The problem is, when bad people run a religion, that in turn leads to others thinking that the religion itself is bad, since the impression people get is that if bad people run something, how can it be good?

 

Good as a concept is what I mean about the churches. Obviously an individual church organization with nothing but corrupt people is going to be a bad church.

 

What we have, as you pointed out, as a result are many, many people who'se perceptions are affected by this. Such perceptions conflate the notions and/or concept of church with necessarily the bad people and goings on inside the organization when that isn't necessarily the case. In order to save the good of the church and what good it can do in turn, it is important to make the distinctions and dispel the myths that will arise when something like this whole terrible ordeal occurs.

 

It needs to be shown the church is essentially a good thing; the bad people in it ought to be brought to justice (as is their duty as moral authority). I think this is really the only way this point can be proven. Any backpedaling, and the poisoned perception will continue to largely live on. At least that's what I think in terms of common sense and perceptions.

 

Hope that clarifies things.

[Web Rider]

I'm rather saddened, almost offended, by that assertion. Since when did showing concern for the victims equate to a defence of child molestation?

 

Are you a victim? If yes, feel free to be concerned for others who have suffered through what you have. If no, then let them decide how best to deal with their suffering. Your argument is one that has been used for ages with male-female rape. "Don't take them to trial because it'll just hurt them more." Nobody HAS to testify in court, we have the 5th Amendment for a reason, and international courts have similar rules as well. The victims are the ones who should decide if they want to talk about their ordeal or not.

[Darth333]

Maybe so, but i'm pretty sure that there will be those among the abused who don't want this very painful episode to be played out in the media any longer.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this...continue to ignore the problem? This needs to be addressed not just for what happened in the past but for the future.

 

Maybe so, but i'm pretty sure that there will be those among the abused who don't want this very painful episode to be played out in the media any longer.

Then they simply don't have to share what they experienced. No one forces them to take their case to court. It's a personal choice...Maybe the victims are just like me (feel free to call me a coward if you want - I was 5 or 6 - but I have my own reasons which I will not share): I am glad it's finally out but I would not go to court (even as a lawyer, I avoid litigation as much as possible as almost everyone can potentially lose something - monetarily or else). No money will ever compensate for this and I don't need vengeance, especially not under the form of outrageous sums of money: I only want to find peace and courts will not bring this to me. Law is not an emotional thing: you don't get an apology, it's a cold and monetary dispute (if some people feel satisfy by it, then fine for them but I couldn't care less).

 

I have recently asked to be unbaptized...I still believe in the message of Christ (which I personally believe is about peace, helping, acceptance and tolerance...the purpose being to make life better for the human race, not worse ) but I never believed in the middle-age-politico Catholic church interpretation crap.

 

As Ping said:

The religion itself isn't bad, but the people are.

[Totenkopf]

I have recently asked to be unbaptized...

 

Never knew there was a procedure like that. Isn't it essentially the same as requesting ex-communication (versus being ex-communicated)?

[Ping]

Never knew there was a procedure like that. Isn't it essentially the same as requesting ex-communication (versus being ex-communicated)?

 

I think excommunication means you're no longer part of the church. Being unbaptized seems to be a bit different. I actually like the idea - people should have their own choice when it comes to religion, which is why I kind of dislike the process of having young kids become baptized before they know what's going on.

[Totenkopf]

Yes, ex-communication is basically a form of punishment where you're effectively kicked out of the Church. I've just never heard of anyone being unbaptized before. By asking to be unbaptized, you're essentially kicking yourself out of the Church. Was wondering what that was and how it worked. Usually, w/Catholics afaik, people who've claimed to have left the Church haven't necessarily done anything formal. They've just stopped attending mass and receiving the sacraments and following the rules. Often identified as being "fallen away".

[JediAthos]

I'm pretty sure the suits won't hold up, but I'm no lawyer and I could be wrong.

 

I am Catholic and I was around priests my entire young life with no ill consequences.

 

I was inclined to disbelieve the molestation accusations when they first started showing up several years ago, but a combination of some personal research and the further revelations regarding the cover ups and payouts conducted in many of these cases disgusted me.

 

It disgusted me enough that I no longer attend a Catholic church at all. I haven't suspended my belief in God, but I have zero confidence in the Catholic Church as an institution. I consider it a corrupt entity, and until they (meaning The Vatican) clean up their house I'm done with them.

 

That said I hope that all the victims in these cases find whatever peace they desire and most definitely deserve.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

On the one hand I want to support the sovereignty of the church. I think sovereignty for all religions is a crucially important thing. It is not the organization that is bad, it is the people in it that do the bad things.

There's much on your line of thought that I agree on. Particularly on your spot on generalization regarding the difference between an instituition and the people that compose them at a given time. In other words, it's not an evil religion.

 

First of all I must clarify I'm Roman Catholic, and unlike what such a statement might awake on readers I'm not only posting it to safely and morally guarded distil poison against the Church. If anything, I'm normally a staunch defender of my religion (even though I'm not a particularly fervourous believer). This matter does, naturally, set my emotions on fire, notably that of hate and comtempt for the sick molesters that give an entire organization composed of several innocent priests and followers a bad name and mainly destroy countless innocent lives that have just started. But knowing that the cloth does not make the man and each one makes their choices and that they weren't taught this by theology, I cannot logically blame the Church for the deeds of individuals.

 

But I can blame them for trying to cover their crimes time and time again. The vain fear that it'd, as it eventually did, create a scandal involving important names and that of the institution. We can attribute this (or at least I do) to a certain sense of corporativism. Maybe the priesthood finds it necessary to preserve itself from external scrutiny and thus shadow the cases with the best of their ability. One thing for certain is that the Vatican itself cannot be blamed by the direct actions of the criminal priests, but surely they're liable of guilt for inneficient procedures on what relates to denouncing the clergy.

 

Now as for the part that I quote you and to proceed with my line of thought: how is religion, Catholicism precisely, going to be sovereign if it's a non-state actor? I mean, Vatican City is a state but it acts on the international plane quite like a transnational organization. A hierarquical organization of course, completely different from the many networked IOs (International Organizations) which are horizontal in their would be chain of command, but a non-state actor no doubt. International Relations experts and scholars agree that while it does not meet the criteria for being a state actor like other states (as having a permanent population and stable government), it has earned state-like weight due to it's tradition, established relations with a great deal of countries (and transboundary interference on them) and being a member with qualification of state in several international organizations. It's an entity singular in existence.

 

Deals and treaties with foreign powers (especially with the itallian government) see that those foreigners are granted access to the country and act as pivotal agents of the Vatican and the Holy See functionality. For instance, to behave as police to the state for a determined period of time.

 

In short, how can we demand sovereignty to a state that has none and yet, by being present worldwide, interferes with the sovereignty of other proper Westfalian states?

 

PS: You'll have to excuse me if I gave your observation a too much IR-oriented scrutiny. I do have my reasons though.