Slashdot Mirror
The Pope Criminalizes Leaks
PolygamousRanchKid writes "Pope Francis overhauled the laws that govern the Vatican City State on Thursday, criminalizing leaks of Vatican information and specifically listing sexual violence, prostitution and possession of child pornography as crimes against children that can be punished by up to 12 years in prison. But without the leaks, how would we find out about those crimes against children? Many of the new provisions were necessary to bring the city state's legal system up to date after the Holy See signed international treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Others were necessary to comply with international norms to fight money-laundering, part of the Vatican's push toward financial transparency. One new crime stands out, though, as an obvious response to the leaks of papal documents last year that represented one of the gravest Vatican security breaches in recent times. Paolo Gabriele, the butler for then-Pope Benedict XVI, was tried and convicted by a Vatican court of stealing Benedict's personal papers and giving them to an Italian journalist, Gianluigi Nuzzi. Using the documents, Nuzzi published a blockbuster book on the petty turf wars, bureaucratic dysfunction and allegations of corruption and homosexual liaisons that afflict the highest levels of Catholic Church governance. Gabriele, who said he wanted to expose the 'evil and corruption' that plagued the Holy See, was convicted of aggravated theft and sentenced to 18 months in the Vatican's police barracks."
"But without the leaks, how would we find out about those crimes against children?" -- these are not relevant. Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.
Its not even neccesarily the case for it to be the sort of thing that topples popes. It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.
In many ways you can abuse a child simply by refusing to intervene when a child is being abused. As adults we have a responsibility to *all* children. I truly believe that.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
They may be trying to correct things going forward with a strong stance on some pain points but it is obvious that the Vatican as an organization does not feel comfortable to risk transparency.
To be fair, the media and our society are not interested in the big picture, or the full truth. The church could be as transparent as glass, and we'd just point a microscope at the dirt and make a giant fuss over it, and anyone who had the slightest conflict with the church would raise these items up at every opportunity.
We might say we want transparency and truth, but we'll collectively crucify (forgive the incidental allusion) anyone who gives it to us.
I don't want to be transparent in a world where the hint of suspicion of a crime can be front page news, and can destroy someones life, while the follow up story that one is completely innocent is a half inch on page E11 after the obituaries, if it makes the news at all, because someone elses live is busily being ruined on the front page.
No in that world, which sadly is this world, I'd rather it not get out at all. Because I know it won't be treated fairly or objectively, or with an eye to the whole story. Just sensationalist nonsense and then move on.
Only a fool would really want transparency.
surely men of the cloth would be much more noble, moral and ethical than the norm.
Because why?
If you really do believe in god, as described in Christianity why do you need the Vatican?
If you truly believe in science why do you need universities? What possible benefit could there be to gained from people who dedicate their lives to research and teaching? Surely one does not need teachers. Full knowledge springs into the minds of those who want it. Or not.
Just as your average layperson has pretty poor grasp of advanced physics they have an equally naive grasp of religion.
Sure we can argue that the Vatican's role has been corrupted perhaps, that it has been subverted by greed and politics, that its purpose is to collect and secure power, rather than enlighten followers with the teachings of their scriptures... sure we can have that conversation. And there'd be plenty of legitimacy to it.
But likewise we can argue that the university is more interested in securing grant money, generating prestige, and enticing ever more profitable foreign students than in imparting any knowlege or skills to the student body which it views largely as an inconvenient necessity in the pursuit of its aforementioned primary purposes.
The church, like the university may not be perfect, but its not as entirely ridiculous as you imply.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. - John 3:20
just sayin'
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
And most adults would agree that being deceitful, mean, vindictive, or heartless is wrong, and yet everyone has done something of the kind.
The fact that you can't live up to moral perfection isn't an indication that your moral code is false; it's an indication that you're not perfect.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Yes, when you know that a child is being molested, and you cover up for the molester, there is a name for you... Accomplice.
Uh.. It isn't quite like that. The reason the bible needs explanation is quite simple and obvious, though christians and non christians alike miss this completely. It was written in a different context to the modern world. In order to understand the intent of the author, a scholar is required to have at least a partial understanding of the social, political and historic context of the work, not to mention the cultural and belief systems of the time. Paul of Tarsus did exactly the same thing, explaining/adapting the Jewish worldview to non-jewish christians.
Literal interpretations tend to thoroughly ignore the context above, and therefore miss the intent of the authors. Whether you believe religion is a relic of the past or not, you need to understand it's context to understand it. And that requires plenty of explanation to your average person.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I think you should somehow establish what the "myth" is, since the article despite being pro-catholic, clearly establishes a persecution and burning documentedly 2000+ persons for nothing while majority of spaniards approved the action - yet right after that the article tries to pin the bad reputation of the inquisition on protestant propaganda - and that the church's scribes records are the true word on the matter and 100% factual, honest and leaving nothing out.
what a load of crock. what's the popular myth then if not spanish officials killing people based on hearsay? that torquemada ate still beating hearts??
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I think the popular myth was that it was the Catholic church who was behind the killings, when, apparently, it was the Spanish government.