Vatican City

Kiwi in IE

I find it absurd that an 0.5 square km area inside Rome is considered a 'soveriegn state'. How can an area that size, with a population of 500 odd people, be a sovereign state? It should barely qualify as a suburb due to size and population. I'm sure there are apartment buildings that have a larger population. It is a small area within a large city in Italy, not a country. It is as ridiculous a concept as Temple Bar declaring itself an Independent State. Secular coutries should refuse to recognise it.

pauldla

Well, this article an about.com puts forward these reasons why the Vatican can be considered a State.

In summary, the Vatican

1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries.
2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
3. Has economic activity and an organized economy.
4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.
7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.

So, tiny as it may be, by the criteria above it qualifies.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/vaticancountry.htm

robindch

I haven't read the book, but I believe that Geoffrey Robertson's 2010 book, The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, suggests that the Vatican's claim to statehood is, at best, dubious:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Pope-Vatican-Accountability-Rights/dp/0241953847

http://www.ejiltalk.org/geoffrey-robertson-responds-on-the-statehood-of-the-vatican/

jank

Whatever your opinion about whether it should be a state or not, the fact of the matter it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

Should Andora not be a state so? Or Lichtenstein? What would you constitute a nation state and under what parameters?
Anyway the true question is why does it bother you. It bothers me as much as Monaco.

jank

robindch wrote: »

I haven't read the book, but I believe that Geoffrey Robertson's 2010 book, The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, suggests that the Vatican's claim to statehood is, at best, dubious:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Pope-Vatican-Accountability-Rights/dp/0241953847

http://www.ejiltalk.org/geoffrey-robertson-responds-on-the-statehood-of-the-vatican/

Well with a title like that I wouldn't say its written from a pure non biased historical perspective.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

Well with a title like that I wouldn't say its written from a pure non biased historical perspective.

It's written from a legal perspective.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's written from a legal perspective.

It's a fantastic book, too, and one that should be required reading for all R.R.C. apologetics; I "forced" a few friends and family members, who were somewhat sympathetic to the R.C.C. and the Vatican, to read it, and it changed their minds completely. There are few books that put forward an argument as clearly, concisely and cogently as Robertson's book manages to do.

As for the query in the O.P., the landmass or population size of a state has little to do with the legitimacy of its sovereignty. There are numerous other aspects of the Vatican's statehood, which are put forward in Robertson's book, as Robin points out, that can be used to form a better argument against the Vatican's sovereignty than its population size and geographical area.

Mark Hamill

pauldla wrote: »

Well, this article an about.com puts forward these reasons why the Vatican can be considered a State.

In summary, the Vatican

1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries.
2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
3. Has economic activity and an organized economy.
4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.
7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.

So, tiny as it may be, by the criteria above it qualifies.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/vaticancountry.htm

Ikea has 1 to 6.
7 and 8 are tautologies, arent they? You need them to be considered a state, but you wont get them until you are considered a sovereign state.

SPQRI

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I find it absurd that an 0.5 square km area inside Rome is considered a 'soveriegn state'. How can an area that size, with a population of 500 odd people, be a sovereign state? It should barely qualify as a suburb due to size and population. I'm sure there are apartment buildings that have a larger population. It is a small area within a large city in Italy, not a country. It is as ridiculous a concept as Temple Bar declaring itself an Independent State. Secular coutries should refuse to recognise it.

I find it incredulous that a country that's on the other side of the planet should prostitute the flag of another county on its own!

But who really give a fcuk!!!

Feathers

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I find it absurd that an 0.5 square km area inside Rome is considered a 'soveriegn state'. How can an area that size, with a population of 500 odd people, be a sovereign state? It should barely qualify as a suburb due to size and population. I'm sure there are apartment buildings that have a larger population. It is a small area within a large city in Italy, not a country. It is as ridiculous a concept as Temple Bar declaring itself an Independent State. Secular coutries should refuse to recognise it.

why secular countries in particular?

Surely that's the same logic (though changing the numbers) of saying countries shouldn't recognise Ireland as a soveirgn state?

I mean half of the US federal states have a bigger population. 3 quarters of Indian states have a bigger population — why should they recognise a place that's only as big as one of their smaller counties to be have its own soveirgnty?

robindch

jank wrote: »

Anyway the true question is why does it bother you.

Because there are serious issues related to the covering-up of child abuse for which Ratzinger and various friends are using the Vatican's unconvincing diplomatic immunity to hide behind.

jank wrote: »

Well with a title like that I wouldn't say its written from a pure non biased historical perspective.

I don't immediately see why a book title should be misleading, false or fail to have some connection what's inside. Do you?

jank

robindch wrote: »

Because there are serious issues related to the covering-up of child abuse for which Ratzinger and various friends are using the Vatican's unconvincing diplomatic immunity to hide behind.I don't immediately see why a book title should be misleading, false or fail to have some connection what's inside. Do you?

Elaborate?

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

Elaborate?

You could read the book that was suggested in the first couple of posts. It is actually a very good read. I have not read it for a while, but off the top of my head here are a couple of points:

- total dependency of Italy. Water, sewage, power etc all come from Italy.
- no actual police or non-fantasy based law. If you mug someone in Vatican City you will be take to an Italian police station and tried in an Italian court.
- most of the office and apartments that house the staff of the Holy See are actually in Rome, not Vatican City.
- by sticking their nose into politics, as they are wont to do, they are actually breaching one of the terms of the Lateran treaty. This treaty is the one that gives the land which they base their claim to statehood on.

There are plenty of others, but I have not read the book for sometime.

I really would recommend it though.

MrP

Peregrinus

I think the whole business of the Vatican, it’s tiny territory, it’s negligible population, etc, is a bit of a red herring in this context.

The Vatican City State was created in 1929 by the Lateran Treaty. But the Holy See has existed, and has been exchanging ambassadors, signing treaties, etc, for centuries. (In fact, the Lateran Treaty was a treaty between the Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See, which neatly illustrates the point that the Holy See was a player before the Vatican City State existed.) The Vatican and the Holy See are two distinct entities.

The Vatican, as a state, is a place of almost no significance, except to Italy. It takes part in no international organisations, it attends no conferences, it sends and receives no ambassadors and it has bilateral relations with only one country - Italy. And those have to do with mundane things like sewage, and policing St. Peter’s Square.

The Holy See is the significant international player. Over time it has controlled varying amounts of territory - sometimes none at all - but its international and diplomatic significance has never really depended on the territory it controlled.

It’s not helpful to think of the Holy See as a state. It’s an organisation whose core activity is presiding over, and representing at the international level, the religious movement commonly called the Catholic church. Recognising the Holy See on the diplomatic level is a bit like recognising the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the Order of Malta, or the OECD, or the EU, or the UN, or a host of other international organisations which enter into relationships with governments, send and receive ambassadors and are generally players of some significance on the diplomatic scene.

You can certainly debate whether the Holy See should operate at this level or whether states should recognise it or accept its doing so. But the territory, population, sewage arrangements, etc of the Vatican City State are not really relevant considerations in that debate.

I confess I haven’t read Robertson’s book, and my List Of Books I Mean To Read Some Day is already longer than is credible, so I’m reluctant to add to it. If he’s banging on about where the Vatican gets its water from then I’m not really interested, because I think he’s missing the point.

But I am interested in the claim that “there are serious issues related to the covering-up of child abuse for which Ratzinger and various friends are using the Vatican's unconvincing diplomatic immunity to hide behind”. Can anyone tell me does Robertson deal in any detail with this, i.e. the claim that the church is using diplomatic status to cover up child abuse?

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

I confess I haven’t read Robertson’s book, and my List Of Books I Mean To Read Some Day is already longer than is credible, so I’m reluctant to add to it. If he’s banging on about where the Vatican gets its water from then I’m not really interested, because I think he’s missing the point.

That is a very small part of the book. Please do not let my faulty recollection from 2 years ago put you off. It is a very good read. Additionally, it is quite a small book, and a very quick read. I read it in little more than an evening.

He does mention the diplomatic aspect of it. In fact, it is mention in relation to one of the Irish clerical abuse investigations. The judge in that investigation, Ryan I think, specifically mentioned how the Vatican / Holy See refused to deal with them. In fact, the Holy See apparently complained to the Irish government and said that any RFIs had to come by diplomatic channels, and were then ignored.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

He does mention the diplomatic aspect of it. In fact, it is mention in relation to one of the Irish clerical abuse investigations. The judge in that investigation, Ryan I think, specifically mentioned how the Vatican / Holy See refused to deal with them. In fact, the Holy See apparently complained to the Irish government and said that any RFIs had to come by diplomatic channels, and were then ignored.

I don't see that there would have been a different outcome if diplomatic recognition had been withdrawn, though, or had never been accorded in the first place. In other words, this isn't an example of the Vatican authorities using their diplomatic status to avoid doing something they could otherwise have been compelled to do.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that there would have been a different outcome if diplomatic recognition had been withdrawn, though, or had never been accorded in the first place. In other words, this isn't an example of the Vatican authorities using their diplomatic status to avoid doing something they could otherwise have been compelled to do.

You sure? Consider this:

Imagine there was a massive child abuse scandal in the Hot Dog King (HDK) fast food chain. I came to light that a significant minority of the employees of that company abused children during birthday parties. There was credible evidence that the branch and area managers were aware of the abuse, but rather than report it to the authorities they moved the abusers to other branches in other areas, and in severe cases sent them on sensitivity training courses or extended leave.

As investigations continued it became clear that the head office in the US was highly likely to have been aware of the abuse, and, in fact, appeared to have procedures in place for dealing these allegations, though the procedures did not seem to include contacting the local authorities. It now turns out that similar behaviour has been seen in every country where the fast food chain operates.

Due to the massive number of allegations in Ireland the government launched an enquiry. As part of the investigation the enquiry team asked for any documentation relating to internal reports of abuse and communications between area managers and head office in the states. Here they ran into a problem. Some year previously the GOP had been in some trouble politically. In order to win an election they enlisted the help of HDK to mobilise there staff and customers to vote GOP. This was successful and in return for the help the GOP gave HDK an area of land to set up their headquarters. This land is considered to be a separate state and HDK is treated like a sovereign state.

HDK ignore the request for information from the enquiry. Further, they complain to the Irish government about being contacted directly and demand that any further questions be directed through diplomatic channels. It is also pointed out that because HDK is, in effect, a state in its own rights the communications between area managers and head office are covered by diplomatic privilege. They are, therefore, under no obligation to provide them to the enquiry on request, nor can they be legally compelled to do so.

The enquiry has to proceed without the assistance of the organisation that is responsible for the crimes it is investigating.

Do you think that is acceptable?

It seems to me that, were the diplomatic angle not present, the church could have been compelled to participate more fully in the investigations into it behaviour. Granted, it would also require some balls on the part of the government, but that is what is needed. The church should be treated like any other company when it comes to criminal investigations. Sham statehood is not, or should not be, a sufficient excuse for refusing to assist in an investigation into your organisations own illegal behaviour.

MrP

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Whatever your opinion about whether it should be a state or not, the fact of the matter it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

Should Andora not be a state so? Or Lichtenstein? What would you constitute a nation state and under what parameters?
Anyway the true question is why does it bother you. It bothers me as much as Monaco.

Does Monaco hide child rapists? Does it interfere in the lives of people WORLDWIDE?

MrPudding

joseph brand wrote: »

Does Monaco hide child rapists? Does it interfere in the lives of people WORLDWIDE?

The bit that irritates me, sorry, one of the bits that irritates me a little bit more than everything else irritates me is this scummy organisation actually breaches the treaty that they claim gives them statehood:

Lateran Treaty, Article 24 wrote:

In regard to the sovereignty appertaining to it also in international matters, the Holy See declares that it desires to take, and shall take, no part in any temporal rivalries between other States, nor in any international congresses called to settle such matters, save and except in the event of such parties making a mutual appeal to the pacific mission of the Holy See, the latter reserving in any event the right of exercising its moral and spiritual power.

MrP

PopePalpatine

joseph brand wrote: »

Does Monaco hide child rapists? Does it interfere in the lives of people WORLDWIDE?

Also, does the Vatican have a Grand Prix? :pac:

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

You sure? Consider this . . .

. . . As part of the investigation the enquiry team asked for any documentation relating to internal reports of abuse and communications between area managers and head office in the states. Here they ran into a problem. Some year previously the GOP had been in some trouble politically. In order to win an election they enlisted the help of HDK to mobilise there staff and customers to vote GOP. This was successful and in return for the help the GOP gave HDK an area of land to set up their headquarters. This land is considered to be a separate state and HDK is treated like a sovereign state.

HDK ignore the request for information from the enquiry. Further, they complain to the Irish government about being contacted directly and demand that any further questions be directed through diplomatic channels. It is also pointed out that because HDK is, in effect, a state in its own rights the communications between area managers and head office are covered by diplomatic privilege. They are, therefore, under no obligation to provide them to the enquiry on request, nor can they be legally compelled to do so.

The enquiry has to proceed without the assistance of the organisation that is responsible for the crimes it is investigating.

Do you think that is acceptable?

The example is a bit fanciful, but it still doesn’t make your point. Even if HDK was not a “a state in its own right”, they would still have been “under no obligation” to hand over what was sought, and they could not have been “legally compelled” to do so. In your example the HDK authorities, if they were not in the sovereign territory of HDK, would be in the sovereign territory of the USA, and the outcome would be exactly the same. If you’re outside Irish jurisdiction, you’re outside Irish jurisdiction; it makes no difference whether you claim to be a sovereign state, or an entity within some other sovereign state. Consequently, even if the church authorities in Rome enjoyed no kind of international or diplomatic recognition, they could (and no doubt would) still have ignored the tribunal’s requests, because they’re in Rome, not in Dublin. And that would have been perfectly legal.

The Vatican’s ability to thumb it’s nose at the tribunal, therefore, did not depend to any extent on any sovereign status; it depended simply on the fact that the Vatican is not in Ireland.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not defending the Vatican’s stance on this, and I’m not unsympathetic to gestures which illustrate our anger and revulsion. But we need to be honest that that’s what our measures are; gestures. If we think that by withdrawing recognition from the Vatican we would thereby exert any kind of greater control over it, or limit its independent action in any way, we’re simply delusional. And delusion is not a good basis for public policy.

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Also, does the Vatican have a Grand Prix? :pac:

Depends on whether the 'Prix' is pronounced as in English or French.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

The example is a bit fanciful, but it still doesn’t make your point. Even if HDK was not a “a state in its own right”, they would still have been “under no obligation” to hand over what was sought, and they could not have been “legally compelled” to do so.

Are you sure? Multinationals are "compelled" to do things they don't want to all the time. Sometimes it is by statutory provision and sometimes he pressure is more subtle.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In your example the HDK authorities, if they were not in the sovereign territory of HDK, would be in the sovereign territory of the USA, and the outcome would be exactly the same. If you’re outside Irish jurisdiction, you’re outside Irish jurisdiction; it makes no difference whether you claim to be a sovereign state, or an entity within some other sovereign state.

I don't think this is quite true. We have criminal investigations involving various sovereign states all the time. This is not uncommon. In addition, domestics laws can extend to activity which takes place in other jurisdictions.

Pressure on companies to comply with investigations, for whatever purpose, does not have to legal. Companies enjoy a wide range of privileges which allow them to operate relatively hassle free and profitably. Threats to take a closer look at the goings on or increased oversight can have great effect.

Aside from that, there are legal mechanisms to hold parent companies liable for actions of subsidiary companies. Whether or not the church could be compelled to co-operate in an investigation (quite why a supposed guardian of morality would need to be compelled to co-operate in the investigation of child rape perpetrated by is own employees is, I must admit, something that boggles my mind) falls into a similar category as the property transfers used to divest the various diocese of assets so they could plead poverty and avoid paying compensation. They could, if the will was there, be quite easily defeated.

Similarly, if governments decided that enough was enough, any excuse the vatican used to avoid co-operating with investigations with its employees, diplomatic or not, could likely be dealt with.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Consequently, even if the church authorities in Rome enjoyed no kind of international or diplomatic recognition, they could (and no doubt would) still have ignored the tribunal’s requests, because they’re in Rome, not in Dublin. And that would have been perfectly legal.

The Vatican’s ability to thumb it’s nose at the tribunal, therefore, did not depend to any extent on any sovereign status; it depended simply on the fact that the Vatican is not in Ireland.

Again, I am not convinced. If the church was compared to a multinational then this is not so clear. Recent cases would indicate that parent companies can be found liable for the act of subsidiaries. During litigation documentation and records from parent companies are used in evidence. And again, if the will was there, it could be done.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not defending the Vatican’s stance on this, and I’m not unsympathetic to gestures which illustrate our anger and revulsion. But we need to be honest that that’s what our measures are; gestures. If we think that by withdrawing recognition from the Vatican we would thereby exert any kind of greater control over it, or limit its independent action in any way, we’re simply delusional. And delusion is not a good basis for public policy.

I don't agree. Whilst the accountability that multinational companies are held to leaves a lot to desire, it is considerably greater than that which the vatican or holy see is held to.

But for the diplomatic status the vatican could be treated like any other multinational company or organisation. Without the diplomatic status criminal investigations would be easier. I can't find a reference right now, but i have a strong recollection that evidence was withheld in a criminal investigation on the basis that the material being requested had diplomatic status.

And yes, you are probably correct to say a lot of this is tilting at windmills, but if enough people do it someone might listen.

Have a look at this:

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=40036&kb_header_id=47307

Quite interesting. The article referenced at 37 is pretty good.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you sure? Multinationals are "compelled" to do things they don't want to all the time. Sometimes it is by statutory provision and sometimes he pressure is more subtle.

Irish laws, and Irish court orders, and the directions of Irish tribunals, etc, do not affect companies (or individuals) not based in Ireland. There are exceptions to this; there are EU arrangements for arrest warrants, for example, and for the enforcement of civil judgments, but none of them would be relevant here.

To continue your HDK example, the most effective way to put pressure on the parent company would be to threaten its financial interests in Ireland – change the tax treatment of licensing of its Irish operating subsidiary, for example. If this would hit the bottom line of HDK more than disclosing the information sought from the parent company, HDK would at least consider disclosing the information.

There are, of course, reasons why an Irish government would hesitate to do this, mostly to do with the adverse impression it would create of Irland as a location for international investment, or as a country enjoying political and legal stability. But leave that aside; the point here is that Ireland could try to create a situation in which it was in HDK’s interests to disclose the information sought, but we couldn’t create a situation in which we could impose a legal obligation on the non-Irish-based parent company. After all, if we can’t create a legal obligation enforceable in the notionally sovereign state of HDKland, doesn’t it follow that we also can’t create a legal obligation enforceable in the very really sovereign USA?

The bottom line is that Ireland cannot create legal obligations enforceable in the Apostolic Palace in Rome. The reason for this does not depend on whether the Apostolic Palace is in the territory of the Vatican City State or of the Italian Republic; it’s enough that it is not in the territory of Ireland.

What we could do, as we would in the HDK casd, is to threaten the Vatican’s interests in Ireland – the tax treatment of the Catholic church, the role of the Catholic church in education, etc. Again, there are serious questions about whether we ought to do this, or at any rate whether we ought to do this for this reason, but in principle we could do it. But we can do it now; our ability to do this does not in any way depend on whether we recognise the Vatican City State or the Holy See at the diplomatic level.

MrPudding wrote: »

Have a look at this:

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=40036&kb_header_id=47307

Quite interesting. The article referenced at 37 is pretty good.

It is interesting. And disgusting. But, again, unless I’ve overlooking something I don’t see that the diplomatic recognition of the Holy See is a factor here.

Mark Hamill

If the Vatican insists on hiding behind some sort of imagined statehood, could we not just declare war on them?
They have trained agents in countries across the world, who attempt to manipulate governments to maximise their own power and who have a documented history of abuse of children everywhere they go.
Leaked documents have shown that the organization has guidelines to baffle police investigations into the abuse, so who's to say that the abuse is not one of their aims of the organisation? A lack of cooperation means we cannot say if these guidelines were made in answer to the abuses or before the abuses begin, in order to maximise their damage.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

there are EU arrangements for arrest warrants, for example, and for the enforcement of civil judgments, but none of them would be relevant here....

Why do you say they are not relevant? If Irish govt. or Gardai contacted their opposite numbers in Italy (as opposed to the Vatican/Holy See) in relation to alleged crimes, a fully co-operative response would be required. Compare to the Sophie du Plantier case where investigators travelled between Ireland and France, witnesses were compelled to give evidence, with full disclosure of documents to the French. Generally in the EU the suspect is required to be extradited to the country where the alleged crime took place, and if the evidence is only available abroad, the other police force will gather it and send it on, or else they invite an investigating team to travel for the purposes of collecting it.

Secondly there is some additional diplomatic immunity for a "Head of State" which Ratzinger could personally claim in a worst case scenario.

And then there's the fact that when you can manipulate the laws of the sovereign state you reside in, you and your buddies are never going to fall foul of those laws. Berlusconi was a mere amateur at that game.

endacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It is as ridiculous a concept as Temple Bar declaring itself an Independent State.

May be off-topic, but wouldn't this be a good thing? With strict border controls? We could let people in, and let nobody out. Would solve both the Temple bar problem and the people-who-frequent-Temple-Bar problem?

Just a thought...

endacl

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Also, does the Vatican have a Grand Prix? :pac:

Yes. His name is Benedict. Grand Prix = Big Prick, non? Qu-est que c'est? Oui? Non?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Why do you say they are not relevant? If Irish govt. or Gardai contacted their opposite numbers in Italy (as opposed to the Vatican/Holy See) in relation to alleged crimes, a fully co-operative response would be required. Compare to the Sophie du Plantier case where investigators travelled between Ireland and France, witnesses were compelled to give evidence, with full disclosure of documents to the French. Generally in the EU the suspect is required to be extradited to the country where the alleged crime took place, and if the evidence is only available abroad, the other police force will gather it and send it on, or else they invite an investigating team to travel for the purposes of collecting it.

Ireland can certainly issue an EU arrest warrant directed at a resident of the Vatican; we can do so now. Whether we recognize the Vatican or the Holy See as sovereign is irrelevant to this decision.

The real issue is whether Italy would enforce the arrest warrant - i.e. arrest the person concerned and sent them to Ireland. Italy recognizes the sovereignty of the Vatican City State, and indeed has bound itself by treaty to do so, and this is not something which Ireland can change. As long as Italy recognizes the Vatican, then (a) they won’t enforce the arrest warrant within Vatican territory, and (b) they won’t enforce the arrest warrant in Italian territory against someone with a claim to diplomatic or sovereign immunity on the basis of their connection with the Vatican. (Note that most Vatican residents have no such claim; they can be arrested in Italy, and are, when the occasion arises.)

So that’s an area where Vatican/Holy See sovereignty could provide church officials with a degree of protection which would not otherwise be available. But it would be Italian recognition of sovereignty that would be at issue here, not Irish recognition.

More to the point, it’s a hypothetical. We haven’t issued an EU arrest warrant against any church official who is resident in the Vatican. Nothing I’ve seen reported suggests that we have anything like the the evidence that would be required under Irish law to support the issue of a warrant. And my question in this thread is not “can we conceive of a hypothetical in which recognition of Vatican sovereignty could provide protection to a church official against investigation or prosecution?” It’s “is it already the case that church officials are using recognition of Vatican sovereignty in this way?”, which I think is the claim made in post #11.

The parallel with the Toscan du Plantier case is not, I think, exact. In that case a French national and resident was murdered while staying in Ireland. The crime was committed in Ireland and the investigation was undertaken by the Irish police. The French asked to be kept in the loop, and to be involved. Whereas when the Tribunal made its request for information from the Vatican authorities, there was no suggestion that any crime had been committed in the Vatican, and neither the Vatican nor the Italian authorities had any investigation ongoing. If we had asked some Italian-based organisation for information to aid a tribunal of enquiry and they had declined to provide it, and we had then asked the Italian authorities to compel them to provide it, I’m pretty sure that the Italian authorities would have told us to sod off. Internationally, countries will co-operate to some extent in the enforcement of criminal law, but they generally won’t co-operate in the enforcement of investigative enquiries, revenue matters, administrative matters, etc.

Just to be clear, I’m not defending Vatican/Holy See sovereignty here (and still less the behaviour and actions of the Catholic authorities with regard to child abuse). I’m just making the point that I don’t think Vatican sovereignty has quite the relevance in this context that some people suggest.

recedite wrote: »

And then there's the fact that when you can manipulate the laws of the sovereign state you reside in, you and your buddies are never going to fall foul of those laws. Berlusconi was a mere amateur at that game.

Yes, you can, but in fact the Vatican has adopted the Italian Criminal Code wholesale, so it doesn’t appear that they take advantage of this opportunity, at least when it comes to criminal law. It’s unlikely that the Italian criminal code penalizes a failure to report a crime committed ioutside Italy; Irish criminal law certainly doesn’t. So we can hardly say that the failure of the Vatican legal code to do so amounts to manipulation.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Internationally, countries will co-operate to some extent in the enforcement of criminal law, but they generally won’t co-operate in the enforcement of investigative enquiries, revenue matters, administrative matters, etc.

I think the key point here is that the matters referred to in the Ryan report were criminal matters. And the Vatican refused to co-operate.
The crimes were committed in Ireland, and certain incriminating documents were alleged to have been sent from a bishops palace to the Vatican, where they remain in a secret archive.

Are you saying that if Italy had sovereignty over these guys, they would still be allowed to thumb their noses at an official Irish government request for access to those documents?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I think the key point here is that the matters referred to in the Ryan report were criminal matters. And the Vatican refused to co-operate.
The crimes were committed in Ireland, and certain incriminating documents were alleged to have been sent from a bishops palace to the Vatican, where they remain in a secret archive.

I think not. I’m speaking from memory here, but I think what the Tribunal asked the Vatican authorities for, was details of reports to Rome of abuse worldwide not specifically from Ireland, and not specifically in relation to the cases that were known to have occurred in Ireland.

recedite wrote: »

Are you saying that if Italy had sovereignty over these guys, they would still be allowed to thumb their noses at an official Irish government request for access to those documents?

Yes, they would. The Tribunal of Enquiry wasn’t a police investigation into crimes with a view to prosecution. It was a fact-finding exercise. The Italian authorities might (or might not) have co-operated with it themselves, if they had any relevant information in their own archives, but I don’t see any basis on which they would have compelled (or indeed wanted to compel) Italian residents - individuals or groups - to co-operate. The Irish state, quite simply, has no authority in Italy; there is no reason why Italians should be compelled to co-operate with researches and enquiries undertaken by the Irish government, or why the Italian government would want to compel them. And I think this is generally true; I can’t, off-hand, think of any government enquiry/royal commission/tribunal from any country making investigations in foreign jurisdictions under compulsion of the local law. This is just not the kind of co-operation which sovereign states extend to one another; it’s too great a compromise of sovereignty. Remember, the whole point of sovereignty is to protect citizens from the demands and depredations of foreign powers. The default position is that a sovereign doesn't enforce the orders, judgments, laws, etc of other states. There are of course many exceptions to that default, but each of them needs a clear legal basis and is carefully defined.

Even in criminal matters, co-operation is subject to quite strict limits. In the du Plantier case, the Guards were making their own investigations and were happy to share the outcome with the French police. They were also happy to host French police officers who came to observe. But there was a limit to what the French police could do. For instance, they couldn’t interview anyone who didn’t agree to be interviewed, and anyone who did agree could decline to answer their questions. They couldn’t require the guards to interview, and still less to detain, anyone (though they did try, by all accounts). They couldn't have anyone arrested. They couldn't enforce French search warrants against Irish premises or records or documents kept in Ireland. Etc, etc. But none of this is really analogous to the Murphy enquiry, because that wasn’t a criminal investigation.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

but I think what the Tribunal asked the Vatican authorities for, was details of reports to Rome of abuse worldwide not specifically from Ireland...

It was the Murphy Commission I was thinking of actually, and they requested information relating to their remit, specifically child abuse by clergy in the Dublin archdiocese.
As we know, it was the policy of the Bishops and Archbishops to handle such matters internally, and to seek guidance from higher up the chain of command, but not to involve the civil authorities.
Therefore a lot of incriminating evidence relating to the various cover-ups must be stored in the Vatican archives.

I take your point that no sovereign state would feel obliged to entertain an Irish tribunal of Inquiry though. They have no power to prosecute, and all the tribunal statements and admissions of guilt are inadmissible as evidence in a real criminal prosecution. In some ways they are just a way of deflecting public anger, while avoiding a real
trial.

It would be interesting to see an Irish court ask the Vatican for discovery of documents containing information relating to some specific prosecution, just to see how they respond.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

It was the Murphy Commission I was thinking of actually, and they requested information relating to their remit, specifically child abuse by clergy in the Dublin archdiocese.
As we know, it was the policy of the Bishops and Archbishops to handle such matters internally, and to seek guidance from higher up the chain of command, but not to involve the civil authorities.
Therefore a lot of incriminating evidence relating to the various cover-ups must be stored in the Vatican archives.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Mind you, unless we assume that the Dublin diocesan authorities didn’t keep correspondence files, wouldn’t everything sent by Dublin that could be found in Rome also be found in Dublin? And the church authorities in Dublin don’t enjoy any kind of extraterritoriality or immunity. So if you were chasing that stuff with, you know, warrants and stuff, it really wouldn’t matter whether the Rome end of the correspondence was in the Vatican City State or the Italian Republic; the Dublin end would be in Ireland, and you could get it.

recedite wrote: »

I take your point that no sovereign state would feel obliged to entertain an Irish tribunal of Inquiry though. They have no power to prosecute, and all the tribunal statements and admissions of guilt are inadmissible as evidence in a real criminal prosecution. In some ways they are just a way of deflecting public anger, while avoiding a real
trial.

It would be interesting to see an Irish court ask the Vatican for discovery of documents containing information relating to some specific prosecution, just to see how they respond.

The Vatican would tell the Irish authorities to bugger off, I have no doubt. But if there were no Vatican City State and the church authorities were within the Italian jurisdiction, then the Italian authorities would tell the Irish authorites to bugger off - same outcome. I don’t think there’s any mechanism for enforcing discovery orders internationally.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

unless we assume that the Dublin diocesan authorities didn’t keep correspondence files, wouldn’t everything sent by Dublin that could be found in Rome also be found in Dublin?

I'd imagine that when it comes to sensitive information, the Holy See would instruct the Archbishops not to retain copies, or if they had kept copies, they would have destroyed them or sent them out of the country as the investigations began.
We are talking about people who took out "paedophile insurance"; people well trained in the art of crisis management and damage limitation.

"At the time the Archdiocese took out insurance in 1987, Archbishop Kevin McNamara, Archbishop Dermot Ryan and Archbishop John Charles McQuaid had had, between them, available information on complaints against at least 17 priests operating under the aegis of the Dublin Archdiocese. The taking out of insurance was an act proving knowledge of child sexual abuse as a potential major cost to the Archdiocese and is inconsistent with the view that Archdiocesan officials were still "on a learning curve‟ at a much later date, or were lacking in an appreciation of the phenomenon of clerical child sex abuse.

from wiki

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I'd imagine that when it comes to sensitive information, the Holy See would instruct the Archbishops not to retain copies, or if they had kept copies, they would have destroyed them or sent them out of the country as the investigations began.
We are talking about people who took out "paedophile insurance"; people well trained in the art of crisis management and damage limitation.
from wiki

'
Recedite, haven't you spotted that the evidence you yourself cite refutes what "you'd imagine" the Holy See would have instructed? The Murphy Commission's information about the "complaints against at least 17 priests" came from the Dublin diocesan archives. Clearly, then, the Holy See did not instruct the diocese to destroy or dispose of these records - or, if it did, the diocese ignored the instruction. (And the insurance was taken out in Dublin, not in Rome, so you can't impute sinister Machievellian skills to the Romans on the basis of that decision.)

On a wider note, I think you (and many others) misunderstand the relationship between Rome and the various dioceses. The Catholic church is often presented as a tightly-controlled, centrally-run organisation, with everything micromanaged from Rome. The last bit is not correct; very little is decided, or even considered, in Rome. As regards offending priests, until a bishop is trying to laicise an offending priest - and, as we know, that step generally came very late in the day - it's unlikely that Rome would know of the priest's existence, still less of his offences or the bishop's response to them.

Rome controls the local churches, not by second-guessing everything they do, but by appointing men to run them who are so steeped in a Roman clerical culture that they can be relied up to know what is expected of them, and to do it, without any need to refer very much back to Rome. Rome takes an interest in the things that interest Rome - liberal theologians, for example, or bishops not toeing the line on contraception - and those are the local church issues that take up the time and attention of the (suprisingly small) Roman bureacracy. Otherwise, they have neither the interest nor the resources to micro-manage local churches. Local churches don't submit their accounts to Rome, for example. On something like defending church assets against legal threats or the church's reputation or social standing agains unwelcome publicity, Rome doesn't really involve itself because it doesn't need to; the local men know what to do and they do it. They follow their own instincts. They're in the job because they have the right instincts.

The result is that if you're looking for a documentary "smoking gun" that shows Rome deciding a worldwide let's-deny-and-stonewall policy in relation to sex abuse claims and instructing the world's bishops accordingly, it almost certainly doesn't exist. No such decision was every taken. It didn't need to be. The culture made it unneccessary.

recedite

The kind of documentation I am referring to might transfer some blame from the Irish church to the Vatican. Instructions on how to manage the high profile cases. The policies of moving paedophiles around, and of not informing civil authorities. Do you seriously believe these policies were created simultaneously in various other countries, as some sort of co-incidence, without any input from the Vatican?
There could also be some cases not known to the Murphy Commission. It is conceivable that there might be cases in which the victims have agreed to have all records erased locally. For example, the victims might now be part of the hierarchy.
Since 2001, the Vatican requires each individual case of alleged abuse to be referred to it directly. This is a response to the failure of regional churches to keep a lid on things. It does not square up with the idea that the Vatican have little or no role in managing regional churches.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The kind of documentation I am referring to might transfer some blame from the Irish church to the Vatican. Instructions on how to manage the high profile cases. The policies of moving paedophiles around, and of not informing civil authorities. Do you seriously believe these policies were created simultaneously in various other countries, as some sort of co-incidence, without any input from the Vatican?

I don’t believe they were “created simultaneously”, with or without input from the Vatican; I believe they were a natural expression of long-establishbed, deeply-rooted and hightly toxic cultures of clericalism and sexual naivety. And I believe they are simply a specific example of how potentially embarrassing clerics were always dealt with since, like, forever.

I could be wrong, of course. But, basically, I make it a rule never to explain by a conspiracy theory that which can be plausibly accounted for without a conspiracy theory. And I think this can.

recedite wrote: »

There could also be some cases not known to the Murphy Commission. It is conceivable that there might be cases in which the victims have agreed to have all records erased locally. For example, the victims might now be part of the hierarchy.

There could, but it’s a bit of a fishing expedition. The chances of there being very much to find in the Roman archives about events in Dublin that couldn’t be found in Dublin were never very high.

And, to be honest, I think that’s reflected in the comparative lack of effort that the Murphy Commission put into its Roman enquiries. They wrote a first letter making rather general enquiries, and were told indirectly that they had gone the wrong way about it; they wrote a second and got no reply; they never wrote a third letter, or sent a reminder, or put out enquiries as to other avenues of approach. My take on this is that they didn’t want to leave that particular stone unturned, just in case turning it over might reveal something, but they never thought the chances that it would reveal something were very great, and there was a limited amount of time and resources they were going to put into following that particular line of enquiry. They were understandably pissed at the off-hand treatment they got, but they never had any reason to think there was some vast cache of incriminating evidence being kept from them.

recedite wrote: »

Since 2001, the Vatican requires each individual case of alleged abuse to be referred to it directly. This is a response to the failure of regional churches to keep a lid on things. It does not square up with the idea that the Vatican have little or no role in managing regional churches.

It squares very neatly with the idea that, until 2001, this was an area that they did leave up to local churches. It’s only when the whole thing turned toxic on them in a very public way that they felt the need to take some kind of ownership of, and control over, the response to abuse allegations.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

They wrote a first letter making rather general enquiries, and were told indirectly that they had gone the wrong way about it; they wrote a second and got no reply; they never wrote a third letter, or sent a reminder, or put out enquiries as to other avenues of approach. My take on this is that they didn’t want to leave that particular stone unturned, just in case turning it over might reveal something, but they never thought the chances that it would reveal something were very great, and there was a limited amount of time and resources they were going to put into following that particular line of enquiry.

Their enquiries met a brick wall. As a result there was some political flak, and in the end the Irish embassy to the Vatican closed, perhaps co-incidentally, or perhaps not. We cannot say what would have been revealed. Nor can we say that a refusal to co-operate means there was nothing there to be revealed. You can say the refusal implies they had nothing to contribute, and I can say it implies they had something to hide. In the end its just speculation, because the Vatican is so expert at covering up.

Regarding the universal RCC policies of moving abusive priests, covering up their activities, holding secret internal investigations without informing civil authorities.....
If the Vatican hierarchy developed or sanctioned these policies, you may see that as too incredible a conspiracy to believe. But the notion that the policies somehow evolved independently everywhere at a local level, without Vatican approval, seems to me to be too much of an amazing coincidence.

68Murph68

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the Vatican insists on hiding behind some sort of imagined statehood, could we not just declare war on them?
They have trained agents in countries across the world, who attempt to manipulate governments to maximise their own power and who have a documented history of abuse of children everywhere they go.
Leaked documents have shown that the organization has guidelines to baffle police investigations into the abuse, so who's to say that the abuse is not one of their aims of the organisation? A lack of cooperation means we cannot say if these guidelines were made in answer to the abuses or before the abuses begin, in order to maximise their damage.

We should really have used Italia 90 as the opportunity to invade.

The Irish football squad could have taken the pope hostage when they met him to kick things off. A few busloads of undercover Irish soldiers disguised as Irish football supporters on tour having a gawk around the Vatican would do the heavy lifting off the invasion. All they would have to worry about is the Swiss Guard who are only a very small outfit by all accounts. Tell everyone else (especially the Italians, that if they get involved the pope gets kneecapped/possibly whacked) Make it an ultra-fast operation and use misdirection as much as possible (maybe we could have scheduled it the same time as Italy were playing a game)

Seize all the assets of the Vatican (cash, priceless art-works and historical bits and bobs)

A lot of other countries might tut-tut but feck it.

Claim it was a bit of an Irish drunken prank that could out of hand.

Apologise and airlift all the troops (along with cash and other assets) home.

Worse case scenario if anything went wrong we could simply go to confession and the slate would be wiped clean.