Will the Holy See ever wake up about the United Nations?

Let me get this straight.

While berating the Catholic Church for sexual abuse of children, the United Nations criticized the Church for opposing legalization of abortion… the ultimate child abuse… and wants the Church to change her teachings.

I had an email from C-FAM with these two items:

Vatican Blasts UN Committee That Asks Church To Change Teaching on Abortion and Homosexuality

[...]

UNESCO Report Promotes Abortion and Same-Sex Narrative

[...]

What I wouldn’t give to see the Holy See stop panting with its tongue lolling out after the UN as the world’s forum for “justice and peace”.

Will the Holy See ever wake up and see that the UN is Planned Parenthood on a global scale?

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Will the Holy See ever wake up about the United Nations?

  1. ClavesCoelorum says:

    It is all over the news here in Germany. The Spiegel is rejoicing, and has put up a huge cover story about “the Church’s hypocrisy”.

    All I can say about the UN is this: At least that woman on the committee has to say “Holy See”. I bet they are furious every time they have to say it.

  2. Uxixu says:

    Will the United States ever wake up about the United Nations? This is the same organization that treated Stalin and Mao as equals to the United States and free allies…

  3. Uxixu says:

    Meanwhile it will castigate the Vatican but in the worst sort of double standard, do nothing about the Islamic nations that will execute homosexuals outright.

  4. Patrick-K says:

    I’m not sure I see how the Holy See is not awake. I would be surprised if the pope and the apostolic nuncio don’t understand how the UN works. But what would you have them do about it? Withdraw in protest? That wouldn’t do anything other than reduce the Vatican’s influence. I think most people realize the UN is just another bloated, ineffectual government bureaucracy with no real impact on anything.

  5. ClavesCoelorum says:

    Read the report here: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CRC/Shared%20Documents/VAT/CRC_C_VAT_CO_2_16302_E.pdf

    Page 5 is especially interesting… you’ll see what I mean.

  6. excalibur says:

    The Vatican should have never signed that treaty in the first place.

  7. Magpie says:

    You obviously Vatican II Father Z! Vatican II changed all that old fusty stuff about condemnation!!!

    =p

  8. Magpie says:

    I meant to say:

    ”You obviously hate Vatican II Father Z!”

  9. Pingback: Just Wow: UN Denounces The Vatican’s Pro-Life Policies | Nice Deb

  10. Patrick-K says: I think most people realize the UN is just another bloated, ineffectual government bureaucracy with no real impact on anything.

    Then why would it reduce the Vatican’s influence to withdraw from it?

  11. pannw says:

    All this news coming out is so reminiscent of Father Benson’s “Lord of the World” it is simply uncanny. And shiver inducing. And to think he wrote in the foreword that he knew his book to be ‘sensational’… Ha! It was spot on and prophetic, from the looks of things.

  12. Sword40 says:

    There are those in Rome that think the U.N. is our “last best hope”, as there are throughout the world. Why can’t they seem to fathom what the U.N. truly is; a God-less society for the total domination of the world.

  13. Bosco says:

    @pannw,
    I fully agree with your comparison of these recent events as reminiscent of Msgr. Benson’s novel. Might I add that Justice Scalia’s observation about prison camps in the US falls within the same line of thought.

  14. The Cobbler says:

    When men debate agreement between nations then you may be certain a disastrous war is on the horizon. I make an exception for the League of Nations, of which I know nothing. If the League of Nations could make a war it would be the only thing it ever has made.

    Hillaire Belloc, Introductory Remarks to ‘Do We Agree’, a debate between G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw

  15. incredulous says:

    Meanwhile, their “peace” keeping troops engage in the worst child rape and debauchery imaginable.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7420798.stm. I’m sure that 10 UN soliders gang raping a 113 year old give them a wonderful megaphone to attack the Catholic Church in this “abortion is a sacrament” world.

    They have ZERO platform until they clean their own house.

    That said, it’s OUR job to police OUR church. Enough is enough. Bishops, account for your sins.

  16. RJHighland says:

    So let me get this straight the UN says the Church has not handled the sex abuse of minors, mostly adolesent boys by male priests, correctly yet they want the Church to change is views on contraception/abortion and homosexuality. You have men abusing boys and let more men in that are attracted to other males typically young and impressionable and prevent the conception of or kill other children in the womb. Yeah that makes alot of sense. They are really looking out for the kids!

  17. tcreek says:

    Another photo opp for Cardinal Dolan.
    “U.N. officials and friends raised their hearts and hands and voices in gratitude to God. ”
    http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/go-peace
    —-
    On Monday, Sept. 16, on the eve of the opening of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, leaders from around the world gathered in prayer just a block away from the U.N. complex at the Church of the Holy Family.

    With Timothy Cardinal Dolan presiding, flanked by Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, Apostolic Nuncio to the United Nations, and the Rev. Gerald E. Murray, pastor of the Church of the Holy Family (which acts as the Catholic parish for the U.N.), ambassadors, N.G.O. representatives, U.N. officials and friends raised their hearts and hands and voices in gratitude to God, but also prayed for God’s help in aiding men and women everywhere.

  18. frahobbit says:

    It makes my blood boil to think that my Church went before a UN panel as if to explain itself! The point of the UN taking this position is to strike a pose before the world. Down the road, they will strive to impose a tax on all Catholics. And jail for those who don’t pay. What basis? the payouts to abused persons, abuse defined broadly as any trauma from the textbooks teaching differences between the sexes, etc. An example was the mandate for payments declared against the Church in Ireland. If the Catholic Church does not change it’s teachings according to that laid out in the document, it will be seen as incorrigible and any adherents as also incorrigible . This is what I read in the document: that the teachings are responsible for the violent persons who have done violence and the future possibility of some taking actions against those that don’t abide by the Church’s teaching. This was an argument made against the US pro-life demonstrations, that they were the cause of violence against abortion doctors. It shall be used by the UN, with the approval of the world.

  19. PostCatholic says:

    It makes my blood boil that Bergoglio hasn’t explained himself.

    So far, we know that he re-appointed a known enabler of a convicted pedophile priest to lead the Holy See’s office with sole responsibility for abuse cases (Gerhard Muller to the CDF). And we know that in his capacity as President of the Argentine Bishops’ Conference he personally authorized a campaign in defense of Argentina’s to-date most predatory priest (Julio César Grassi) that included an attempt to discredit his victims by influencing judges who’d yet to rule in the matter.

    But why take my word for it? Try the “near-ubiquitous” John L Allen, formerly of the National Catholic Reporter: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2013/03_04/2013_04_12_Allen_HardQuestions.htm.

  20. Uxixu says:

    What sort of civil discussion would you hope to obtain by calling the Holy Father by his given last name like that in a forum like this? I’m not inclined to take you at all seriously based on the handle alone, much less leading off with that.

  21. PostCatholic says:

    One based on examination of the facts. I’ll call him Pope Francis if you prefer, though I do think I were I to search for the names “Bergoglio” or “Ratzinger” using the blog we’d see I hardly set a precedent.

  22. Imrahil says:

    Dear @PostCatholic,

    two points. First, to you and me, it’s Pope Bergoglio at the very least, not to mention Pope Francis or The Holy Father.

    Second, in the assertion about Cdl des. Müller, the phrase “known enabler” seems to assert complicity or cover-up which is not case. When criticising actions, let us rather not assume personal malice of those who made a decision on other grounds.

  23. Imrahil says:

    Forgive me, the dear @Uxixu was faster. I did not intend to repeat the accusation. Once said is enough.

  24. Uxixu says:

    Sure, I know who he is but I find the implications of calling him that to be deliberately provocative. Maybe you didn’t intend it that way but I’m curious if you would imagine faithful Catholics would/would just ignore your blatant disrespect and then go on to the facts you would present (keeping in mind you preface the context as hostile)?

  25. PostCatholic says:

    I’ll concede your objection. Nothing to argue ad rem?

  26. Pingback: Socon or Bust » UN Goes After Vatican

  27. CharlesG says:

    Curious that the UN doesn’t see fit to lecture Islam, Evangelical Protestants, Eastern Orthodoxy, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. that they must change their doctrines to suit the UN…

  28. Johnno says:

    The same U.N. whose soldiers are involved in their own sex abuse scandals, and who daily get lobbying to make pedophilia an internationally recognized sexual right and freedom from Planned Parenthood and other LGBT organizations who they do not condemn but freely allow to flourish?

    What the Vatican should’ve done is demand they owe up to their crimes. Demand the U.N. get their rules about pedophilia abuse in line using the Vatican’s own model. And demanded that the U.N. change their laws to be in line with the law of God who is their sovereign King.

    Until the Church learns to grow a pair we will be ill-equipped to deal with the crows and seagulls that are now circling overhead waiting for the opportunity to strike.

  29. Clinton says:

    As ‘incredulous’ noted earlier, UN aid workers and peacekeeping troops have been
    accused of the sexual abuse of men, women and children in most areas where they’ve
    been employed, but especially in Africa. The UN’s policy has been to repatriate
    aid workers and troops when accusations surface. While I’ve read many accounts of
    accusations of sexual exploitation, or of workers exchanging UN aid for sex, I haven’t
    read of UN workers being held for trial in those countries where the abuse was alleged,
    or held accountable back home.

    That the UN feels that it is in a position to judge the Church would be laughable if it
    weren’t so nauseating.

  30. CrimsonCatholic says:

    The so called experts on the committee were from places such as Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Russia, and several African countries that have all struggled with human rights issues. Who can really take such a report seriously with the make-up of the committee? I guess this is the reason why most countries ignore reports given to them by the UN.

  31. Vincent says:

    Words cannot express how ridiculous/disgusting I find this report:

    “the Committee strongly urges the Holy See to cooperate in studies to determine the root causes of the practice of anonymous abandonment of babies and expeditiously strengthen and promote alternatives, taking into full account the right of children to know their biological parents and siblings … The Committee also urges the Holy See to contribute to addressing the abandonment of babies by providing family planning, reproductive health, as well as adequate counselling and social support, to prevent unplanned pregnancies as well as assistance to families in need, while introducing the possibility of confidential births at hospitals as a measure of last resort to prevent abandonment and/or death of a child.”

    So, the UN tells the Holy See that it must help with studies of abandonment of babies, by providing contraceptives? Huh?

    In other news, they also advise that the Vatican should “make use of its authority to promote positive, non-violent and participatory forms of child-rearing, and ensure that an interpretation of Scripture as not condoning corporal punishment is reflected in church teaching”

    Da. Comrades, the Politburo says we do, therefore we must! Although tbf, it’s long been obvious that the EU and the UN are two of the most evil organisations on the planet.

  32. The Drifter says:

    If I may make a humble suggestion, I believe the Holy See’s answer should be the following:
    “Having throughly examined the report in question, and after serious reflexion, there can be no doubt that the UN Committee is right in pointing out how the serious lapse in ecclesiastical discipline, teaching and morals following the closure of CVII has caused much distress and pain to many innocent people, victims of a widespread pattern of clerical abuse and theological disorder. Therefore, the Holy Father has decided, motu proprio et certa scientia, to reform seminaries across the globe according to a pattern established before CVII, and improving them by following the training techniques already existing in US Marines’ boot camps. We trust, therefore, that from now on anyone without a proper priestly vocation and willing to follow the heresies spelled out in the UN’s report, will prefer to go to Hell passing through Purgatory, rather than going through one of our own boot camps”.

  33. Bea says:

    I Wish I were Holy Father for a day.
    I would send them a scathing reply.
    But tact, politics, “Church of Nice” and political correctness will be the rule of the day.
    What ever happened to Truth and Church Militant?

    How dare they?
    How dare they tell the Church what they must teach?
    Who has given them the power to tell other nations/churches/et. al. how they must act within their own realms?
    Is the world better off since the United Nations was created?
    Who are they to judge?

    In a northeastern state (forgot which one-I was surfing the net) somebody (pushing common core studies) said “Children belong to the State and parents should not interfere”
    Can you imagine if we, as parents, allowed someone who has proclaimed himself an “expert” to come into our homes and take over our children’s upbringing?
    Same principle here: The faithful belong to the Church and the Church, alone, has the teaching authority.

    The Church cannot allow the world to come into our realm and tell us what to teach and the Holy See must tell them so, in FORCEFUL language. “get thee behind me, Satan” (AKA world/UN)
    That’s what I would tell the UN commission if I were Pope for a day.

  34. Bea says:

    Meant to add
    You can’t play footsies with the devil

  35. Imrahil says:

    As for the ad-rem demanded by the dear @PostCatholic,

    [adding that I comment on second-hand knowledge,]

    there is such a thing as “objectively ridiculous”, and despite the political climate being somewhat in the way of recognizing it, the committee in question has just been precisely that.

    Even if – God prevent – one think that women should have the right to abort their children (though if one does one is not very logical to begin with) … still it has nothing to do with clerical molesters.
    Even if one think that what is called the homosexual orientation be equal in value to the normality… still it has nothing to do with clerical molesters.
    Even if one think that the difference between boys and girls ought to be forcefully eliminated… still it has nothing to do with clerical molesters.
    Even if one think that homosexual acts are no sins (and, consequently that the Church does violence to people it threatens with postmortal punishments because of them)… still it has nothing to do with clerical molesters.

    All this is abundantly clear.

    Which is perhaps why, though yes, as the dear @ClavesCoelorum has reported, it was all over the news in Germany, it has ceased to be so after one day. Spiegel-Online no longer has it on the home page. Sueddeutsche.de does not now have it on the home page. And these are, to put it mildly, papers not precisely known for their friendliness to the Church. Some new information or pseudo-information about the Bishop of Limburg would have remained there much, much longer.

    As the Austrians say, the Committee’s paper is not even worth ignoring.

    What is bad, though, is this. The Church has wanted, here, to be supervised by groups outside herself how to deal with the problem (no, not this is the bad thing; wait for it). This is a step which has reasons for it and reasons against it (sovereignty w.r.t. worldly powers, or the fear of results just like this one come to mind), but anyway has been taken by the Church. Certainly she did so because of the good effects it could have had.

    Well, they did not come. The authorities asked did not supervise the Church how to confront this problem; instead, they said “we’re not Catholics; you Catholics are wrong with your Catholicism to begin with; and that’s all we have to say about the matter” – for even if they did say other things, they are lost in the confusion which results if one misses one’s topic.

    [It does remind one of the most anti-Catholic formula which floated around in the child molestation discussion... which even the heaviest Church critics were somewhat ashamed to use. This was the formula: "the molestations were bad and show how wicked Catholic priests are, but let's not forget that the real and even worse harassment is to raise a child in the Catholic Faith". Sorry to repeat that, but it has indeed been said by some.]

  36. Rachel K says:

    Uxixu says:
    5 February 2014 at 3:09 pm
    Will the United States ever wake up about the United Nations? This is the same organization that treated Stalin and Mao as equals to the United States and free allies…

    I am puzzled. I thought the United States produced the United Nations? It was the creation of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds who originally funded and formed the League of Nations which morphed into the UN after the Second World War. So how does the US need to “wake up” to it?
    I realise it was not a product of the populace as a whole, but these wealthy families are the real movers and shakers on the world stage, their history and interference in politics and population control is well documented for any who wish to see it.

  37. akp1 says:

    Bear in mind that what we see happening isn’t the bigger picture. Of course they know what the UN is. That is why they are there.

  38. PostCatholic says:

    I made no demand. I asked a question.

    It is interesting to me to see how quickly the church is defended where it really ought to be cleansed. This was not a random UN action; it was a periodic review anticipated for all signatories of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Vatican is among them. In other words, the Vatican chose to subject itself to the process by signing the treaty and by cooperating with the panel tasked with periodic review. I would expect no nation is going to get off scott-free with a pat on the head.

    I am sympathetic to the argument that lecturing the Pope on issues of homosexuality and abortion were a step beyond with what was demanded by the review process. I’m even sympathetic to the argument that as a world-wide institution operating in states in which religious freedom is not respected, and under tolitarian regimes, the voluntary subjection to civil authority by Church officials of accused priests may counter the interest of justice. But I have zero patience for the idea that the Holy See couldn’t intervene in abuse cases or act more robustly to defend children. And zero likewise for post-hoc complaints about the authority of the UN when the Vatican has chosen to subject itself to that authority by joining the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and by being a member state.

  39. Johnno says:

    PostCatholic -

    “But I have zero patience for the idea that the Holy See couldn’t intervene in abuse cases or act more robustly to defend children.”

    —You have your precious collegiality, and diminishing of papal power and liberal friends in high places to blame for that along with errors of ‘non-judgmental imprudence’ that are in vogue in every institution, Church or State. These are the ones who covered it up. The ones who encouraged men with dangerous sexual orientations into the priesthood out of tolerance and diversity and other such pro-gay sentimental nonsense. The sort that led to homosexual networks who met, sodomized and covered for each other, and your mainstream press who will protect them because they only care for the innocence of children when it is politically expedient for them. And the fact that our Church leaders have diminished truth and their calling to adopt the tactics of secular PR agencies and corporations to maintain image over action. Not to mention you conveniently ignore the fact that many cases of abuse aren’t reported for years when it’s too late to do anything substantial which also adds to the problem because victims are too ashamed or afraid or unable to for various reasons, so it would be nice if you consider that in your crusade.

    “And zero likewise for post-hoc complaints about the authority of the UN when the Vatican has chosen to subject itself to that authority by joining the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and by being a member state.”

    Agreed. The Church should not be subjecting itself to the U.N. The Church should’ve always insisted it have been the other way around to begin with.

  40. PostCatholic says:

    You’re suggesting that every abuser was a liberal, Johnno? And that the criminals who compounded the crimes were too?

  41. Eliane says:

    To PostCatholic, who wrote: “But I have zero patience for the idea that the Holy See couldn’t intervene in abuse cases or act more robustly to defend children.”

    Pope Benedict tackled the issue head-on by stating that homosexuals should not be admitted to seminaries except in very rare circumstances. Since nearly all the abuse has been male-on-male, that is the core issue which only the most honest of people seem able to admit, although surely all people know it. Rather than acknowledge the essence of the abuse problem, the UN would send the church backwards with its demand to treat homosexuality as if it were not a disorder. The UN basically told the church to revise and expand its homosexual predator problem. The pope needs to tell the UN to p**s off.

  42. frahobbit says:

    @Uxixu: I read a book by Haakon Chevalier that seemed to imply that Communists were responsible for the establishment of the UN.

  43. StJude says:

    Pray for our church, our Pope, our Priests.
    satan is getting bold.

  44. robtbrown says:

    PostCatholic says,

    But I have zero patience for the idea that the Holy See couldn’t intervene in abuse cases or act more robustly to defend children. And zero likewise for post-hoc complaints about the authority of the UN when the Vatican has chosen to subject itself to that authority by joining the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and by being a member state.

    The Vatican is not a member of the UN, but has permanent observer status. Can talk but not vote.

    It seems to me that these scandals are the kind of thing that could/should be handled locally. Why would a bishop need a national episcopal conference or the Vatican to know what to do? These episcopal trimmers did nothing, and the consequence is not only the millions of dollars paid in settlements but (more importantly) the suspicion of priests.

    It was and is a matter of common sense. Priests with serious problems should have been immediately reduced to the status of sacerdos simplex (saying mass but absolutely no pastoral contact). Instead, they were often just moved to a new assignment.

    One of the strongest dioceses in the US is Wichita, thanks largely to the leadership of David Maloney, who retired in 1982 after 15 years. In 1980 the asst pastor at my old parish was picked up for soliciting a male police officer on Friday. Sunday morning he was already gone from the diocese, sent to the rehab facility in New Mexico. Later, he tried to return to the diocese and was told no. Dead from AIDS about a year later.

    Bp Maloney was a true shepherd.

  45. robtbrown says:

    IMHO, it’s good to have an organization for diplomats from around the world to meet. On the other hand, it seems that these highly centralized, international organizations inevitably promote contraception programs and abortion

    A similar thing happened with the European Parliament, one of whose early Presidents was the notorious promoter of abortion Simon Veil. A few years ago the EP narrowly rejected an attempt to proclaim abortion a human right.

  46. Johnno says:

    PostCatholic -

    “You’re suggesting that every abuser was a liberal, Johnno? And that the criminals who compounded the crimes were too?”

    — No. I’m stating that it was liberal attitudes that led to a climate of lack of sexual discipline, which leads to lack of leadership discipline, lack of prudence and ill-advised tolerance and promotion of sexual immorality, which together in the end made possible the abuse, the cover-ups, and the lack of action. But rather an effort to cover up the crimes for PR reasons rather than justice and truth. Because that is what the world today runs on: passing the buck, and whitewashing our sins and celebrating them rather than seeing them as the root of a problem that will only explode in time. This very sort of contradictory idiocy is why the U.N. is now still advocating for more of the very same thing that led to the abuse in the first place.

    The U.N. is telling the Church to get its act right with regards to abuse, while also promoting monetarily and vocally other groups that are advocating for pedophile/inter-generational sexual rights and freedom and the elimination of age-of-consent laws. It is simply mad. But when you’re an organization that has no problem murdering children, then why not sexually take advantage of them as well and call it a ‘right’? So given that the U.N. has no problem with tolerating child-sex advocates because they provide a means to control population growth by murder, then the only reason for them to criticize the Church is not really about actual concern about child-abuse, but rather just a propagandist effort to undermine the credibility of the Church who they see as the biggest obstacle to their population-killing agenda. By getting the Church to change its teachings on contraceptives and homosexuality, marriage and sexual morality, the Church becomes another useful vehicle for their disastrous policies.

  47. The Masked Chicken says:

    Should the Vatican start lecturing the U. N. on its civil rights violations? If any group should heed the admonition to remove the beam in their own eye, it might be them. That being said, they have gotten around to recognizing the abuse scandal in the Church. Big deal. Are they looking at the abuse scandal in education or, the Lutheran church or the medical field? Their posturing says nothing new about the abuse scandal and their stance on abortion and contraception is idiotic. Thus, they are useless.

    The Chicken

  48. Uxixu says:

    @Rachel and @frahobbit, the US certainly had a role in the establishment of the UN and much like NATO we could argue it filled a valuable role in providing a mechanism for peaceful discussion during the Cold War, but it’s a non-sequitur over whether it’s always been fundamentally flawed (as I would argue) or even if not, that it’s flawed structure is more blatant/obvious in a post-Cold War world (as I find NATO). I have no objection to membership in it, but I am skeptical of any organization that presents Communist dictatorships and Islamic fascists on the same moral level as the western democracies (for all their flaws), much less the United States.

    @PostCatholic there is a lot of 20/20 hindsight being applied here. I have no disagreement that many bishops did not do what they arguably should have regarding abuse cases but it is mendacious to claim Rome should have been immediately involved just as it is to imply blanket disregard instead of putting it rightfully in the context of the public attitudes of the times in secular society as well as… hostile anti-Catholic/Christian secularists will try to claim it’s endemic to priesthood (usually with their eye on the discipline of celibacy/continence) if not other leftist canards as contraception, homosexuality, divorced, womynpriests, etc.

    I have great sympathy with the bishops who are wary of mandated reporting to the secular authority, much less the imposition of zero-tolerance policies that would have dubious effect. That sympathy lessens if they’re not today at least removed from direct ministry, if not laicized depending, but I don’t retroactively place these expectations on bishops in the 70′s and 80′s who might have been advised differently under different conventional wisdom on such matters (particularly WRT rehabilitation).

    If anything, the level of scandals in US public education are as frequent, if not worse than ever in the Church yet they are not castigated as institutions, to say nothing of the Islamic dictatorships who the UN won’t dare mention. The betrayal of trust is abominable but I have no reason to trust the UN or wary to give it credence for reasons above.

  49. Uxixu says:

    To summarize, the UN is a decent (if flawed), model for international diplomacy, but just about worthless for anything else, including this discussion as well as just about any other domestic policy.

  50. PostCatholic says:

    RobtBrown, thanks for the correction. Member vs. Permanent Observer is an important distinction.

    Uxixu, when did I say the Vatican should have been immediately involved? There are multiple points at which the Vatican, however, was involved both during the initial investigations of criminal abusers by priests, multiple times it was involved in laicization proceedings, multiple times it was involved in selecting bishops, multiple times when though a disturbing pattern had emerged it did not call those bishops to account. You can see for yourself: huge chunks of the “secret archives” of American dioceses have been forced into the sunlight as part of settlement with the victims and we know there’s quite a lot of influence the Vatican had in covering up these crimes. See them for yourself. at http://www.bishop-accoutability.com. Whether with hindsight something different had ought to occurred at the time is irrelevant; there are many things the Vatican can still do to ensure the protection of youth and children, and more than few bishops with terrible moral compasses it could still act to remove.

    Johnno–that idea doesn’t square with the facts. Dig a little deeper into the primary sources.

  51. PostCatholic says:

    RobtBrown, thanks for the correction. Member vs. Permanent Observer is an important distinction.

    Uxixu, when did I say the Vatican should have been immediately involved? There are multiple points at which the Vatican, however, was involved both during the initial investigations of criminal abusers by priests, multiple times it was involved in laicization proceedings, multiple times it was involved in selecting bishops, multiple times when though a disturbing pattern had emerged it did not call those bishops to account. You can see for yourself: huge chunks of the “secret archives” of American dioceses have been forced into the sunlight as part of settlement with the victims and we know there’s quite a lot of influence the Vatican had in covering up these crimes. See them for yourself. at http://www.bishop-accoutability.com. Whether with hindsight something different had ought to occurred at the time is irrelevant; there are many things the Vatican can still do to ensure the protection of youth and children, and more than few bishops with terrible moral compasses it could still act to remove.

    Johnno–that idea doesn’t square with the facts. Dig a little deeper into the primary sources.

  52. Uxixu says:

    Every major heresy had bishops either as heresiarchs, or advocates. There are issues with more than a few bishops and these vague allegations or impropriety may or may not be amongst them. All of us in the Church Militant, in and out of the orders and laity, have duties to ensure the protection of our youth and I’d argue what can be done is being done but it’s not a one time magic fix just as it’s not the 70′s and 80′s anymore.

    It seems your impression of the relationship between Mother Church and the bishops might be mistaken, however. Rome doesn’t appoint & remove bishops as if they’re regional managers of a multinational corporation. Canon law must be observed with allegations of violations and trials conducted against the bishop. Similarly a bishop has a certain amount of authority and power to administer his own diocese and Rome does not micromanage these. There are genuine differences of opinion on how best to proceed as well as the basic principle that one solution doesn’t fit all situations. Obviously there’s influence but it must be specifically brought to bear. Specific complaints can and should be laid to that individual bishop as well as to Rome if he proves recalcitrant. Painting everything with one brush is both counterproductive and… naive, at best but smacks of a… hostility and general anti-Catholic agenda that your first posts on this thread didn’t help alleviate, if that makes sense.

  53. cwillia1 says:

    The UN claims to be X. The Church teaches that it is good for X to exist. Consequently, the Church treats the UN as if it were X, patiently explaining and defending itself. The UN largely fails to be X the UN is also Y and Z, which are not good. So what is the best course of action? To condemn the UN for what it is means being excluded from every international forum it provides. The Church witnesses for the truth at these forums and builds coalitions with other groups and nations that are useful. No other organization claims to be X. I believe the current policy is right.

  54. Rachel K says:

    Uxixu says:
    “To summarize, the UN is a decent (if flawed), model for international diplomacy, but just about worthless for anything else, including this discussion as well as just about any other domestic policy.”

    Decent, if flawed??!

    Have a look at this:
    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/26/the-united-nations-exposed-who-is-in-control/
    … And lots of other information on the web.

    The UN was set up, via the League of Nations, as a means of world control, by some of the wealthiest industrialists and bankers on the planet. For self-serving interests.

  55. Why don’t they spend more time working on how to help the victims heal from their abuse? That seems to make more sense to me.