Guilty of Torture
So Says the U.N. 5 . 13 . 14
I have suggested before that it is precisely the position of the Church on abortion that draws the ire of the U.N.’s social engineers against the Holy See.
While many countries defend their laws protecting unborn children, the Holy See alone among U.N. member and observer states speaks out against abortion as a human rights issue. People that have made sexual autonomy the ultimate end of development efforts and the final goal of human progress cannot tolerate the resounding moral clarity of the Church’s teaching on abortion and accuse the Holy See of being misogynistic. By questioning the Holy See about clergy sex abuse they have reached a new low. This really is the equivalent of kicking someone when they are down.
No Pope has ever sought to escape liability or scrutiny on this issue, Tomasi explained. Benedict XVI and Francis have had no qualms about asking for forgiveness even where they had no responsibility and have reached out to victims with spiritual and other support. Dioceses have gone broke to compensate victims of sex abuse. And the Church has invested millions into child protection policies that are exhaustive, unprecedented, and exhausting even—if you don’t believe Tomasi, ask around your local parish.
The Holy See can do nothing to implement the convention in other countries “outside the jurisdiction of the Vatican city,” Archbishop Tomasi explained to no avail, adding that that the Holy See nonetheless goes above and beyond the call of duty to promote the convention through its “pastoral mission.” The committee did not listen.
They retorted that clergy swear fealty to the Pope, and that every bishop and priest in the world is answerable to the Pope. That is true enough. Therefore, they concluded, the Pope is answerable for any crime they commit. But the Pope only has jurisdiction over priests and bishops when it pertains to spiritual matters. The most he can do is defrock a priest or suspend him. He cannot put anyone in jail for a crime that takes place outside the Vatican City. Even canonical penalties are voluntary, in the sense that the Holy See has no police to enforce canon law.
This is what U.N. experts fail or don’t want to understand. They are unable to distinguish between spiritual and temporal power—there is no separation of Church and State in their worldview, only the State.
Understandably, they don’t get canon law either. Perhaps they should not be faulted for that. It takes a lifetime of training in theology and canon law to begin to understand its complexities. But they may—and indeed should—be faulted for disregarding basic principles of international law.
The Holy See acceded to the torture convention with the written understanding that it applied to the Vatican City State. The experts want to hold the Holy See accountable for the conduct of every priest and bishop in the world, something absurd from the standpoint of common sense and international law alike.
Reservations and understandings to treaties are routine when sovereign states accede to a treaties. The mode of accession to a treaty limits the application of the treaty. This is international law 101. The U.N. experts, many without a legal background, deliberately tried to portray this as a malicious attempt to escape human rights obligations through legal technicalities. The only explanation for this is political.
The experts also took liberties with the convention that fly in the face of any serious legal application of the treaty.
The definition of torture in the torture convention requires action or inaction by………rest of article below
Allow Abortion—Or You’re Guilty of Torture
So Says the U.N. 5 . 13 . 14