Should the UN have a role in Clerical sex abuse investigations ?

anymore

I don't know if the UN has the power under its Charter, but I wonder if it should play a role in the investigation of the world wide Catholic sex abuse phenomenon. Clearly some Governments have been too in thrall to the Catholic Church to have comprehensive investigations and effective sanctions imposed on this global corporation. Ireland is the perfect example of a country that repeatedly failed its citizens in favour of pandering to the church.
Any views ?

Sleepy

It's starting to look like something akin to the Nuremburg trials are going to be needed tbh.

The Saint

anymore wrote: »

I don't know if the UN has the power under its Charter, but I wonder if it should play a role in the investigation of the world wide Catholic sex abuse phenomenon. Clearly some Governments have been too in thrall to the Catholic Church to have comprehensive investigations and effective sanctions imposed on this global corporation. Ireland is the perfect example of a country that repeatedly failed its citizens in favour of pandering to the church.
Any views ?

I wouldn't think so. The UN deals primarily with nation states that are members of the UN. While the Vatican has observer staus at the UN and has certain priveleges there, it is not a member state. Interestingly though, the Vatican is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. :rolleyes:

Here is a UNGA resolution that outlines the Vatcan's status within the UN system.

anymore

The Saint wrote: »

I wouldn't think so. The UN deals primarily with nation states that are members of the UN. While the Vatican has observer staus at the UN and has certain priveleges there, it is not a member state. Interestingly though, the Vatican is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. :rolleyes:

Here is a UNGA resolution that outlines the Vatcan's status within the UN system.

Thank you; there seems to be scope for reducing some of its priviliges at least.

The Saint

anymore wrote: »

Thank you; there seems to be scope for reducing some of its priviliges at least.

I wouldn't think so. That would require another General Assembly resolution revoking these privileges which would unlikely happen even in the unlikely event that a draft resolution was put forward.

If the Vatican was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights some action might be taken, but they're not.

Biggins

The Saint wrote: »

...If the Vatican was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights some action might be taken, but they're not.

True, as far as I know, they were asked to sign it - but so far they have refused.

anymore

Still at least discussing it underlines the seriousness of the situation.
Maybe we should settle for proposing we clsoe the Irish Vatican embasyy and telling the A Nuncio to begin packing his bags.

The Saint

After a bit of thinking about this and looking around, there technically might be scope for action through the International Court of Justice. The chances of it happening would be zero but it's an interesting thought experiment though.

While the Vatican only has observer status at the UN, it would seem that observer states can participate in ICJ cases. Switzerland was an UN observer state until 2002 and was party to a case at the ICJ in 1958, so it seems like it could be possible since I presume observer states must ratify the UN Charter which gives the ICJ jurisdiction. The Court could rule on violations of treaties to which the Vatican is a signitory, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

However, since in contentious cases one state must take a case againt another, it would require one state to lodge a case against the Vatican at the ICJ. However, since the issue does not really deal with relations or treaties between states (something the ICJ was establised to do) I'm not sure if such a case would be possible. It would also depend on whether the Vatican had signed the optional clause in the ICJ statute giving the Court compulsory jurisdiction to rule on cases involving the Vatican without it's consent.

Another, possible more realistic option, would be to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the Vaticans adherence to the treaties named above. For this, the Court does not require permission, regardless of the status of compulsory jurisdiction, to hear a case and to issue a legal opinion on it. However, for such a case to be referred to the Court would require instruction from a relevant UN body, such as the Securlty Council or the General Assembly, which would be unlikey to happen. Also, while the decisions and recommendations from an Advisory Opinion hold significant legal weight, they are not binding and not enforcable.

Anyway, all this is completely outlandish but fun to contemplate nontheless and I could have it completely wrong.

Lockstep

Biggins wrote: »

True, as far as I know, they were asked to sign it - but so far they have refused.

Would be impossible for them to do so; given their stance on women priests, it'd be impossible for them to adhere to the rights of the Convention. Another reason why they can't join the Court of Human RIghts.

The Saint

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Would be impossible for them to do so; given their stance on women priests, it'd be impossible for them to adhere to the rights of the Convention. Another reason why they can't join the Court of Human RIghts.

I think this might also be a bit of an issue:

ARTICLE 12
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

They also haven't signed up to the UN Convention on Civil and Polical Rights which states that:

Article 23
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

jennyjest

Take the tyrants, despots and dictators out of the UN and the place would be half empty !

The Saint

jennyjest wrote: »

Take the tyrants, despots and dictators out of the UN and the place would be half empty !

Could send them to join the clergy. I hear they're running short of people.

jennyjest

The Saint wrote: »

Could send them to join the clergy. I hear they're running short of people.

That wouldnt work as there is only room for one dictator at a time in the Vatican .. and you definitely dont want to upset a German dictator would you ?

Elevator

please, the united nations of failures, bring down the sham that is the catholic religon is the only way imo

jennyjest

Maybe it is time for another Reformation.

peasant

anymore wrote: »

the world wide Catholic sex abuse phenomenon.

Sleepy wrote: »

the Nuremburg trials

Drama, ftw !

Now, I'm no fan of the catholic church, but a sense of perspective, please.

We are still talking about individual perpetrators here, not organised mass peadophelia.

As for the world wide cover-up, I think society as a whole is very much on the case there now, no need to involve another useless talking shop to water down the issue with UN-legal-speak and indicisive non-action.

(anyone remeber the "tough" stance of the UN on the Rwandan genocide? )

rovert

peasant wrote: »

We are still talking about individual perpetrators here, not organised mass peadophelia.

Just an organised cover up of mass pedophilia

Kiwi_knock

peasant wrote: »

Drama, ftw !

Now, I'm no fan of the catholic church, but a sense of perspective, please.

We are still talking about individual perpetrators here, not organised mass peadophelia.

As for the world wide cover-up, I think society as a whole is very much on the case there now, no need to involve another useless talking shop to water down the issue with UN-legal-speak and indicisive non-action.

(anyone remeber the "tough" stance of the UN on the Rwandan genocide? )

Great point, exactly what was needed to be said to put this thread into perspective. The UN will not be taking a hard line towards the Church, I be surprised actually if they said anything about it. They do not want to offend those that they work with.

jennyjest

peasant wrote: »

Drama, ftw !

Now, I'm no fan of the catholic church, but a sense of perspective, please.

We are still talking about individual perpetrators here, not organised mass peadophelia.

As for the world wide cover-up, I think society as a whole is very much on the case there now, no need to involve another useless talking shop to water down the issue with UN-legal-speak and indicisive non-action.

(anyone remeber the "tough" stance of the UN on the Rwandan genocide? )

How may countries does the abuse have to be discovered in before we can call it world wide ? The cover up was organised by the institution even if the abuse was by individuals.

The Saint

Look, the UN are not going to do anything about this. It's an interesting thought but it just ain't going to happen. It will be up to states to deal with this through their own justice systems. Hopefully they actually do it.

jennyjest

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Great point, exactly what was needed to be said to put this thread into perspective. The UN will not be taking a hard line towards the Church, I be surprised actually if they said anything about it. They do not want to offend those that they work with.

Exactly diplomats dont like to do anythig to upset other diplomats...which is why the UN was so ineffective in Rwanda.

peasant

jennyjest wrote: »

How may countries does the abuse have to be discovered in before we can call it world wide ? The cover up was organised by the institution even if the abuse was by individuals.

There is absolutely no question that the clerical child abuse is going on all over the world, nor is there any question over it being covered up by the church.

But ...

Child abuse is an issue in every society (inside and outside the church) and not just the sole domain of the catholic church.
Covering up child abuse (be that in the family, state organisations or the church) also is a world wide occurence.

It is a matter for society, humanity as a whole, to change that.

Singling out the catholic church as the bad guys and charging the UN with the clearup is a far too easy way out.

Everybody has to start with looking at themselves, their environement, their neighbours, their church and their country for change.

Child abuse is happening at everybodies front door (or very near to it) ...do something about it there, speak up, don't leave it to the UN

jennyjest

peasant wrote: »

There is absolutely no question that the clerical child abuse is going on all over the world, nor is there any question over it being covered up by the church.

But ...

Child abuse is an issue in every society (inside and outside the church) and not just the sole domain of the catholic church.
Covering up child abuse (be that in the family, state organisations or the church) also is a world wide occurence.

It is a matter for society, humanity as a whole, to change that.

Singling out the catholic church as the bad guys and charging the UN with the clearup is a far too easy way out.

Everybody has to start with looking at themselves, their environement, their neighbours, their church and their country for change.

Child abuse is happening at everybodies front door (or very near to it) ...do something about it there, speak up, don't leave it to the UN

Well starting at the institution that calls itself 'The One true Church' seems like a good place to start, dont you think ?
And what sets clerical sex abuse apart is that if the things the Church claims about itself were true, then the protracted cover up would have been impossible. The Catholic Church believes itself to be the only true representative of God on earth.

peasant

jennyjest wrote: »

Well starting at the institution that calls itself 'The One true Church' seems like a good place to start, dont you think ?

Yepp ...that's why I left them (after having been heavily involved as a youngster) once I got old enough to have my own thoughts and stand by them.

Everybody is free to do the same, no UN needed.

Overheal

rovert wrote: »

Just an organised cover up of mass pedophilia

In a Territory thats 0.17 square miles large, and is purportedly made up almost entirely of abstinent priests, why is the age of consent 12?

The Saint

Overheal wrote: »

In a Territory thats 0.17 square miles large, and is purportedly made up almost entirely of abstinent priests, why is the age of consent 12?

Holy sh1t. That's insane.

Maybe Irish priest who went on holidays there thought the same applied in Ireland.

Mango Joe

Thread bumped as UN to question Vatican reps on the Catholic Churches involvement in a multitude of heinous crimes, including but not limited to, child sexual abuse, mental abuse, physical abuse and subsequent shameful attempts to cover up their orgy of abuses decade after decade......

- Church car parks are still thronged here though and the collection baskets are still being filled.

Shameful, spineless, self-serving hypocrites each and every one.

Bobby The Builder

The UN can fuck right off and mind their own business. They have no place in a first world country.