Should the Vatican state's ambassador in Ireland be expelled?

Dionysus

I know there's a thread on this general issue, but it has no poll.

Given the revelations that the Vatican state instructed its bishops (employees) in Ireland to ignore Irish state legislation and report directly to the Vatican state when allegations of child abuse against Irish children were made, do you think the Vatican state's representative in Ireland, the papal nuncio, should be expelled?

Charles Flanagan, son of the infamous diehard Roman Catholic Oliver J. Flanagan, has asked that this be done. I couldn't agree more with the man. Is there any reason why that state's representative in this republic should not be expelled?

Seachmall

Unless he's guilty of an actual crime then no.

Biggins

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-the-papal-nuncio-be-expelled-from-ireland-177933-Jul2011/

charlemont

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Send the scumbag packing..

prinz

No

Yes.

SEPT 23 1989

No i think we should sue the Vatican for the destruction of Irish peoples lives since the foundation of our state.

About 120 Billion should cover it

Tazz T

and the rest of the catholic church should go with him

Rented Mule

No

Unless he owns a chipper and can employ a few hundred thousand people.

Otherwise .....ciao !!

Biggins

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

No i think we should sue the Vatican for the destruction of Irish peoples lives since the foundation of our state.

About 120 Billion should cover it

Ya kidding? They won't pay up what they already owe!

Rented Mule

No

Seachmall wrote: »

Unless he's guilty of an actual crime then no.

'He' is not the person guilty of a crime. 'He' is the representative of a country that conspiring to protect rapists and paedophiles at the expense of the safety of Irish children.

My name is URL

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

I don't see what good expelling him would do. It won't change what happened, and the Vatican will just replace him with someone else. Besides, I heard on the radio yesterday that he will be leaving soon anyway. Headed for Prague I think.

Rumors are circulating in Rome that Leanza will be reassigned to Prague in the Czech Republic, in an attempt to halt the embarrassment that would result from his expulsion.

http://mx.noticias.yahoo.com/ireland-moving-compel-church-report-sexual-abuse-183327580.html

usernamegoes

No

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't see what good expelling him would do. It won't change what happened, and the Vatican will just replace him with someone else. Besides, I heard on the radio yesterday that he will be leaving soon anyway. Headed for Prague I think.



http://mx.noticias.yahoo.com/ireland-moving-compel-church-report-sexual-abuse-183327580.html

I think the point is that it would be the office that would be expelled until such a time as we wish to reinstate diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Not necessarily because of his misbehaviors

ScumLord

No

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't see what good expelling him would do. It won't change what happened, and the Vatican will just replace him with someone else.

I would have thought expelling the ambassador would mean your effectively expelling that office not the person.

ejmaztec

As he's almost called the Papal Noncio, he should feck off.

My name is URL

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

usernamegoes wrote: »

I think the point is that it would be the office that would be expelled until such a time as we wish to reinstate diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Not necessarily because of his misbehaviors

Ah, well in that case then sure, the office should be expelled indefinitely. I can't see it happening though.. I can only imagine that if it was a possibility then it would have already happened, or at least the question would not need to be asked.

prinz

No

ejmaztec wrote: »

As he's almost called the Papal Noncio, he should feck off.

Hasn't gotten any funnier since the first time you said it

Wazdakka

No

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't see what good expelling him would do. It won't change what happened, and the Vatican will just replace him with someone else.

I voted more for the expulsion of the position from the country, not specifically the man.

Like with a diplomat.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

No, it sets a dangerous precedent. Who's next? British ambassador?

I do like the Vatican paying compensation idea, although I think it should go directly to the victims.

prinz

No

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, it sets a dangerous precedent. Who's next? British ambassador?

Eh? The precedent is already there. He's due to be heading to Rome soon anyway to bring the Cloyne report in person. He should be travelling on a one-way ticket.

ScumLord

No

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, it sets a dangerous precedent. Who's next? British ambassador?

It doesn't set precedent, it's been done before for other countries.

My name is URL

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Wazdakka wrote: »

I voted more for the expulsion of the position from the country, not specifically the man.

Like with a diplomat.

Yeah, I misunderstood the question. Expulsion of the office makes far more sense than expulsion of just the individual currently filling the role.

Seloth

Although I wouldnt support it...

I'd rather first see every priest expelled from Ireland than the vatican ambassador.He is a foreign representative and be he a priest or not he is still a ambassador.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ScumLord wrote: »

It doesn't set precedent, it's been done before for other countries.

My point is, how many other ambassadors could we kick out over historical reasons?

Biggins

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

...I do like the Vatican paying compensation idea, although I think it should go directly to the victims.

So far they won't pay up what they already owe the state and as for what they have paid up, some have the hard neck to do the following: http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/03/03/catholic-church-asks-parishioners-to-cover-costs-of-sex-abuse-lawsuits/

usernamegoes

No

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, it sets a dangerous precedent. Who's next? British ambassador?

The precedent is well established in international public law for the expulsion of ambassadors. If the British State was involved in the same criminal acts and cover ups that the Vatican is then I would hope the same might be done, taking all other matters into consideration.

My name is URL

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Seloth wrote: »

Although I wouldnt support it...

I'd rather first see every priest expelled from Ireland than the vatican ambassador.He is a foreign representative and be he a priest or not he is still a ambassador.

An ambassador for the 'country' who refused to acknowledge that anything bad was happening and who gave orders for Irish law to be ignored.

prinz

No

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

My point is, how many other ambassadors could we kick out over historical reasons?

It wouldn't be over historical reasons, it would be over the actions of his direct predecessor in the office of Papal Nuncio. He's welcome back when some serious action is taken.

We have expelled embassy staff over other issues.

Biggins

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

My point is, how many other ambassadors could we kick out over historical reasons?

Not kicking them out just for that - but because they won't obey the laws of the land?

ejmaztec

prinz wrote: »

Hasn't gotten any funnier since the first time you said it

Seloth

My name is URL wrote: »

An ambassador for the 'country' who refused to acknowledge that anything bad was happening and who gave orders for Irish law to be ignored.

I'd ask that he be changed but would certainly not cut off diplomatic relations with them,even if they are such a small nation.

RichieC

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, it sets a dangerous precedent. Who's next? British ambassador?

ahh the slippery slope... a scoundrels debate crutch.

My name is URL

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Seloth wrote: »

I'd ask that he be changed but would certainly not cut off diplomatic relations with them,even if they are such a small nation.

Do we really have any proper diplomatic ties with them, though? Other than ones based on religiosity? Something which our political/legal systems should be completely separate from.

Son Of A Vidic

No

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

No i think we should sue the Vatican for the destruction of Irish peoples lives since the foundation of our state.

About 120 Billion should cover it

A great idea, however, the state itself was complicit and turned a blind eye to the abuses committed by the church for decades.

Wibbs

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

My name is URL wrote: »

Do we really have any proper diplomatic ties with them, though? Other than ones based on religiosity?

This. I'd kick them out and withdraw our rep in the Vatican as a protest and a message that for too long this nation has been under the yoke of these primitives that openly harbour evil little "men" in their midst. Harsh? Maybe. Not too far from the truth though IMHO.

admiralofthefleet

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

throw the animal out now

Seachmall

Rented Mule wrote: »

'He' is not the person guilty of a crime. 'He' is the representative of a country that conspiring to protect rapists and paedophiles at the expense of the safety of Irish children.

And as long as we recognize the Vatican as a state that we need to interact with we need him.

Biggins

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Seachmall wrote: »

And as long as we recognize the Vatican as a state that we need to interact with we need him.

Thats like saying as long as we recognise Zimbabwe, we need to interact with Mugabe too!

We can just ignore the fools in either case - and/or make them pay for the screw-ups!

Rented Mule

No

Seachmall wrote: »

And as long as we recognize the Vatican as a state that we need to interact with we need him.

Why would you need to interact with a country whose only 'export' is religion ?

Why would you need to interact with a country who deliberately protected their paedophile and rapist employees at the expense of the safety of the children of your country ?

This is also a country who has had far too much influence in the day to day lives of the people of Ireland. This country has influenced and interfered with the laws of Ireland and has blatantly disregarded others.

Seachmall

Rented Mule wrote: »

Why would you need to interact with a country whose only 'export' is religion ?

Why would you need to interact with a country who deliberately protected their paedophile and rapist employees at the expense of the safety of the children of your country ?

This is also a country who has had far too much influence in the day to day lives of the people of Ireland. This country has influenced and interfered with the laws of Ireland and has blatantly disregarded others.

So the point being made is to stop recognizing the Vatican? I've no problem with that, but until that happens we need to interact with them (they owe us a lot of money).

Rented Mule

No

Seachmall wrote: »

So the point being made is to stop recognizing the Vatican? I've no problem with that, but until that happens we need to interact with them (they owe us a lot of money).

The idea is that they are expelled until they are able to follow Irish (and International) law.

As for keeping them around for 'money', how much does the church own in Ireland ? Imagine what could be done by freezing all of their assets within the country.

Killer Pigeon

Yes, until the Vatican state agrees to respect Irish law

Yes. But we must go even further. We must declare war on the Vatican State.

Dangerous Man

I'm wondering what a country has to do before Ireland will actually retaliate with a measure such as this. Agents of the Vatican rape our children, ursurp our laws and we do nothing.

Ireland needs to send a message to the Vatican that this is serious.

usernamegoes

No

Perhaps even trying to get support from other states on a UN motion to remove recognition of the Vatican's sovereign entity status to stop them using diplomatic privileges to hide evidence and to protect criminals from extraditions.

Knight who says Meh

No

Seachmall wrote: »

Unless he's guilty of an actual crime then no.

He's the official representative of a foreign state which has ignored our state law.

Dionysus

No

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

My point is, how many other ambassadors could we kick out over historical reasons?

The Vatican state instructing its bishops in 2001 to report allegations to it and not to report it to the Irish state unless the Vatican state authorised it is not exactly what most people would understand by the word "historical".

Similarly, the Cloyne Report investigated how the bishop in that diocese dealt with allegations of abuse until the year 2009 and it found that this employee of the Vatican state was also not reporting allegations to the Irish state. In fact, one of the principal findings of the Cloyne Report is that between the years 1996 and 2009, two-thirds of all allegations of child abuse were not passed on to An Garda Síochána. Indefensible, utterly indefensible.


The crimes which we are talking about are not exactly "historical" in the commonly accepted understanding of the word. Viking raids - they were "historical" and in fairness I don't think anybody any time soon is going to be inspired by the expulsion of the Vatican ambassador to call for the expulsion of the Danish and Norwegian ambassadors in 2011 because of Viking raids a millennium ago.

mikemac

Just to throw in that the Eucharistic Congress is in Dublin in 2012, goes to different cities all over the world
Events will be held in the RDS in Dublin and the closing ceremony in Croke Park.

It's a huge event and while it was a different Ireland decades ago, the 1932 Eucharistic Congress was one of the largest events in post independence Ireland

According to a story in this week’s Catholic weekly, The Tablet, the attendance of Pope Benedict at the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin next year is looking increasingly likely

I don't realy have a point to make, just this is a very large event for Ireland and well, you're posting about expelling representatives. Summer 2012 there will be many more here

kraggy

No

The expulsion of the Vatican representative is not the expulsion of said person.


When countries are at loggerheads over something, they expel ambassadors. The ambassador has not, in most cases, done anything wrong. It is an expression of grievance with the country that he/she represents. That is widely accepted and nobody in diplomatic circles would consider it to be a personal affront to the individual in question.

The Vatican's representative should be treated the same. That is, expelled due to the incredible wrong doing of the organisation to which he belongs.

When will we say "enough is enough"? We should be doing much more than expelling representatives.

It's time for the CAB, fines, taxes, taking away power in the guise of our educational system and more.

mcmoustache

No

RichieC wrote: »

ahh the slippery slope... a scoundrels debate crutch.

First they came for the paedophiles but I did not speak up, for I was not a paedophile......or something.

Dionysus

No

I am googling ('googling' is not yet a word on this Google Chrome spellchecker!) for precedents in the EU where one EU state has expelled a diplomat from another EU state. I know the Vatican state is not in the EU but....

There are plenty of examples of EU states expelling ambassadors from non-EU states - most recently Libya - but does anybody have a precedent of one EU, or even one European, state expelling the ambassador from another EU, or even European, state?

I can't even find that the Irish state expelled the British ambassador in February 1972, even though the British embassy in Dublin was burned to the ground on 2 February 1972 (3 days after Bloody Sunday).

Any European precedents, anybody?

joseph brand

Biggins wrote: »

So far they won't pay up what they already owe the state and as for what they have paid up, some have the hard neck to do the following: http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/03/03/catholic-church-asks-parishioners-to-cover-costs-of-sex-abuse-lawsuits/

That's an interesting read, that link. Unbelievable, Oh wait, it's the Catholic church, I CAN believe it. ffs

hmmm

No

Yes, if any other members club in this country decided it wasn't going to follow Irish law their leaders would be in jail.