Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

Dude, it's porn. By porn standards, that much is really, really not a large amount. Especially once you become accustomed to it and need more and more to achieve the same effect.

What worries me the most is the network of accomplices and enablers, especially when it comes to him soliciting live services. How far does the corruption go?

Damn. I'm very below-average when it comes to collecting porn, apparently. I should remedy that.

What I don't especially like about this case (apart from, well, the obvious) is that he's being tried in the Vatican only. It was in the Dominican Republic that he (allegedly?) had sex with minors, and it in the Dominican Republic that he was accused, after which he was recalled in the Vatican (where they found CP on his computer).

He should be extradited to the Dominican Republic and tried there, not in the Vatican.

He may have to much pull there, I don't know what the Dominican justice system is like but this is guy is pretty high level and seems to have avoided detection for years, if he has enough friends in high places he could get of if tried out there.

So basically, for once he might get a stiffer punishment from the Vatican than secular authorities.

If he's guilty, I sure hope that he does not get off easy; and of course, Vatican State's trial will be kept under close scrutiny from the media, and the consequences of them letting him off easily would be (rightfully) devastating.

But still, I'll admit I have no great sympathy for the notion of our Church having direct control of a political entity, albeit a minor one, and employing secular judges and holding trials and having jails and so on — it seems to me that this sort of identification between the secular and the religious is not really in keeping with the ideals of the New Testament, and that it has been at the root of some of the worst episodes of the history of the Catholic Church.

But perhaps I'm biased due to my own country having formed through an unification war fought against the Vatican State itself (among others), after the Church had long opposed it and manipulated Italian politics to prevent unification. By the way, one of the direct consequences of this was the Church breaking its usual practices on the topic of excommunication, by excommunicating the new King of Italy for it and ordering Italian Catholics not to participate to the politics of the Kingdom of Italy.

Needless to say, most Italian Catholics entirely ignored the prohibition — the authority of the Papacy does have limits, after all, and that went way beyond them — until it was quietly dismissed in 1918-1919.

edited 2nd Oct '14 2:03:06 PM by Carciofus

I'm not sure. While Canon Law is the official legal system of the the Vatican, it does use Italian civil and criminal law for circumstances not covered by Canon law so the question does remain which one he'll be tried under.

Class act, guys.

Cue the "Remove homosex" rant.

edited 3rd Oct '14 2:42:58 PM by Quag15

Would be really interesting to read the actual document they're objecting to.

Notice that if you read it they're not saying that violence against women isn't wrong, but that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. If you go by summaries as short as that you end up with "US Troops break into house, kill man, shoot wife"(IE, the Bin laden raid)

"However, it added that the 2011 convention, signed in December 2012 by Poland’s government, treated marriage and family “as a threat” and obligated states to bring up children in line with “nonstereotyped sex roles,” ignoring the views of parents and the church.

“For countering violence, this convention adds no new solutions to existing Polish laws and social practices,” said the statement, signed by the council president, Bishop Jan Watroba of Rzeszow."

I think it all hinges on whether or not this is actually true.

You can find the treaty here (http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?CL=ENG&NT=210 )

To be honest, I don't see anything particularly objectionable. The harshest part seems to be an undertaking to prevent religion being used to justify female subjugation, and to make people aware of "non-stereotyped gender roles". Just looks like the RCC in Poland being shits (as per usual).

edited 3rd Oct '14 3:55:49 PM by Achaemenid

I can get to the gateway page, but not to the actual text of the treaty in either format.

Ah, yes. Take out the parentheses. The close paren at the end is borking the site.

edited 3rd Oct '14 3:39:50 PM by Madrugada

Somehow, when taking into account the fact that Denmark, Germany and freaking Sweden showed reservations about this, it makes one wonder if the document is, in fact, far more dubious and itself a form of prejudice.

edited 3rd Oct '14 3:45:43 PM by Quag15

And yet, Denmark and Sweden have both ratified it, along with those noted powerhouses of feminism Montenegro, Portugal, Turkey, and Albania. Shqip shqip.

edited 3rd Oct '14 3:57:58 PM by Achaemenid

Ok, still reading it, and it seems to me to be mostly fuzzy-wuzzy buzzwords.

The I got to Article 44.4 "For the prosecution of the offences established in accordance with Articles 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Convention, Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that their jurisdiction as regards points d and e of paragraph 1 is not subordinated to the condition that the prosecution can only be initiated following the reporting by the victim of the offence or the laying of information by the State of the place where the offence was committed."

Which appears to read that the victim doesn't even have to be the one to report the offense. In other words, I could report a guy for something he was doing to another woman. And she has no say in it.

And that's reinforced and expanded on by 55.1:

1 Parties shall ensure that investigations into or prosecution of offences established in accordance with Articles 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Convention shall not be wholly dependant upon a report or complaint filed by a victim if the offence was committed in whole or in part on its territory, and that the proceedings may continue even if the victim withdraws her or his statement or complaint.

But I admit that I don't see anything that can be read as identifying marriage as a threat, except the vagueness of the definitions of economic and emotional violence.

edited 3rd Oct '14 4:01:49 PM by Madrugada

I don't know if that was meant to be humourous or sarcastic. We're not a powerhouse, but we accepted feminist values relatively well (the last significant divisive issue was on abortion, and that was a few years ago). And gay marriage is allowed, might I add.

edited 3rd Oct '14 4:03:09 PM by Quag15

The main question is whether or not the treaty criminalizes the teaching children "stereotyped sex roles", if I am interpreting what the Priests were objecting to correctly. I think they mean traditional gender roles within the family.

The Treaty doesn't "criminalize" anything, that isn't how the Council of Europe works.

AND they are unnecessary hostility, AND they're bashing AND they'll get you OTC blocked at the very least if you keep it up.