Panel on Torture Presses Vatican Envoy on Response to Abuse

[SecularMotion]

GENEVA — The Vatican faced sharp questioning by a United Nations panel on Monday about whether it had failed to abide by an international treaty against torture in its response to the sexual abuse of children by priests.

In the hearing, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s representative in Geneva, immediately found himself at odds with members of the panel, the Committee Against Torture, over the Holy See’s view that it is responsible for applying the treaty only to the few hundred inhabitants of the Vatican City state.

Another United Nations panel, on the rights of children, rejected that argument in February, saying that the Vatican’s responsibility for implementing human rights treaties extended to every person and institution under the Roman Catholic Church’s authority around the world. The children’s rights committee accused the church of putting its reputation and interests ahead of those of children.

If the Committee Against Torture reaches a similar conclusion, its report could undermine one of the main obstacles to holding the church accountable for clerical sexual abuse, victims’ advocates say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/world/europe/vatican-envoy-questioned-at-un-over-response-to-abuse.html?hp&_r=0

[cbayer]

1. Just heard a story about this on NPR.

Sounds like it is very, very intense.

[stone space]

2. That's a bzarre arguement, that would imply that the US government has no responsibility for...

...Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.

over the Holy See’s view that it is responsible for applying the treaty only to the few hundred inhabitants of the Vatican City state.

If this argument were to be allowed to stand, it would make a mockery of international law on torture.

[cbayer]

3. I agree and the committee has reportedly responded by dismissing this claim.

They state, and rightly so, that the Vatican has oversight of every parish in the world and is, ultimately, responsible for anything that happens.

And in this case, that seems indisputable.

[pinto]

4. Agree. That's a flimsy argument. Vatican City may be a municipality, yet the Vatican,

(which is one and the same) holds responsibility for oversight of all of its representatives world-wide.

[cbayer]

5. They are reaching for straws in terms of legal maneuvers, and I think

that's unfortunate.

I would like them to stand up, say they made some terrible mistakes, take their punishment and vow never to ever cover up something like this again.

[pinto]

6. Yeah. And they could also defrock them and allow civil authorities to follow up as appropriate.

This also looks to be a test of "who calls the shots" in the Vatican bureaucracy. Francis has an opportunity here.

[cbayer]

7. I think that would be an excellent response.

Clean house and let them be treated as the criminals they are.

He does have an opportunity here and I am interested to see how he responds.

[skepticscott]

8. Wow, that's a great idea!

Wish someone had suggested that before...

Oh...wait..

[pinto]

9. Just stating the obvious, skepticscott. Or restating others' support for it here in the forum.

[skepticscott]

10. Obvious to some, perhaps

but not to the many, many defenders and apologists for the RCC's actions and policies here.

[pinto]

11. You would support a move like that, I think. Right?

I think it would be a good and just move. Let the chips fall as they may.

[skepticscott]

12. I've advocated for it here on multiple occasions, as have others

Only to be opposed by some really reprehensible apologists. I'm sure you know who I mean.

[rug]

13. This is what the fight is about:

But under international law, there is no statute of limitations for torture.

[cbayer]

14. But why are they fighting it at all?

Why not let the group do it's inquiry and not try to wiggle out of it on some technicality?

[rug]

15. Institutionally, removing the statute of limitations would be a catastrophe.

[cbayer]

16. Could you expand on this, because I don't know what you mean.

[rug]

17. If the abuse is deemed by the UN to be torture, every single allegation, true or otherwise,

can be litigated, criminally and civilly, in virtually every country around the world.

That finding could be used to defeat the defense of the statute of limitations (aka, the Statute of Repose) virtually everywhere.

As a corporate institution, it could be destroyed.

Of course, that's the goal of many, even without child abuse.

The stakes are very high and go way beyond the proper handling of child abuse.

[cbayer]

18. I'm really ambivalent about this.

I think they need to be taken to task and I don't think the successful cover up of so many cases should lead to them being exempted from prosecution by a statute of limitations. And I thought there were different time limits when it involved children who had been abused.

Should the Vatican be a corporate institution? Is there any opportunity here to change it to something that is more in line with what a religious institution should be?

Perhaps I am naive, and clearly I do not have the legal knowledge to really understand this, but I have a hard time believing that the UN wants to destroy the vatican.

[rug]

19. I don't think the UN per se intends to destroy it.

It would be naïve though to think no one does. Look around.

Child abuse needs to be addressed and has been, to some extent. More needs to be done.

But the implications of treating it as torture is very problematic, not least of which is the approach to child abuse itself. I can only imagine the criminal courts and family courts treating it as torture.

[cbayer]

20. Does the committee have the option of finding it something other than

torture and demanding some kind of response or sanctions?

Of course, I understand that there are those who are on a crusade to destroy the RCC. I'm just not convinced that this inquiry is driven by that.

[rug]

21. I haven't looked into it that closely but that's usually an option with these types of bodies.

I imagine there's enormous political pressure on it to impose the maximum sanction, just as there is enormous political pressure on it not to. That's what we've been seeing.

[cbayer]

22. Do you have an opinion on what would be a fair and reasonable outcome?

I think it should be of a severe and serious enough nature to assure that this will never happen again, but I'm not sure what that would be.

What do you think of pinto's idea above that the RCC defrock everyone who was clearly involved and let their local legal jurisdictions deal with them?

[rug]

23. I despise judges so my solution is probably not the best one.

They should fully cooperate with each local civic authority and what they do with these violations is a matter of local law. This cooperation should include anyone involved in the abuse or coverups, no matter how high up. The Vatican certainly should not actively or passively obstruct civil justice. It should be done both judiciously and effectively but any lynching or torches should be left to the internet and those who delight in such things.

But it's as important, if not more important, that the circumstances that led to this, should no longer exist. The Vatican Commission that's meeting in the fall looks promising to me. Whatever the UN body decides, their hot breath on the Commission's neck is a good stimulus.

[cbayer]

24. Works for me. I think there is a reasonable consequence that corrects

the institution but does not destroy it.

As to those who will not be satisfied no matter what, that kind of extreme position does not interest me, particularly because it has no chance of happening.

The Vatican Commission looks promising to me as well. I am very interested in what comes out of there.

[cbayer]

25. Update: Vatican Defrocks 848 Priests in 10 Years of Abuse

The Vatican revealed Tuesday that over the past decade, it has defrocked 848 priests who raped or molested children and sanctioned another 2,572 with lesser penalties, providing the first ever breakdown of how it handled the more than 3,400 cases of abuse reported to the Holy See since 2004.


http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/vatican-defrocks-848-priests-10-years-abuse-23605974

[skepticscott]

26. Goody goody for them

The priests lost their precious jobs for raping children. Boo freaking hoo. But they were still protected by the Catholic hierarchy from answering for their crimes, which were kept secret. The arrogance of the Catholic Church is breathtaking. As well of those who think this absolves them of anything.