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."

Comments

So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how long until the Church devolves into an organization that takes people into dank cells someplace and tortures them. Oh... umm... nevermind.

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how long until the Church devolves into an organization that takes people into dank cells someplace and tortures them.

You want that sort of treatment for FREE?! Dream on buddy.

And what's your personal preference, monks or nuns?

Re:So, how long

[fellip_nectar]

Nobody expects that though...

Re:So, how long

[cold fjord]

Interesting article. After 1483 the Spanish Inquisition was at the command of the King of Spain.

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition

Because it was both professional and efficient, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records.

These documents are a goldmine for modern historians who have plunged greedily into them. Thus far, the fruits of that research have made one thing abundantly clear – the myth of the Spanish Inquisition has nothing at all to do with the real thing. . . .

In 1483 Ferdinand appointed Tomás de Torquemada as inquistor-general for most of Spain. It was Torquemada's job to establish rules of evidence and procedure for the Inquisition as well as to set up branches in major cities. Sixtus confirmed the appointment, hoping that it would bring some order to the situation.

Unfortunately, the problem only snowballed. This was a direct result of the methods employed by the early Spanish Inquisition, which strayed significantly from Church standards. When the inquisitors arrived in a particular area, they would announce an Edict of Grace. This was a 30-day period in which secret Jews could voluntarily come forward, confess their sin, and do penance. This was also a time for others with information about Christians practicing Judaism in secret to make it known to the tribunal. Those found guilty after the 30 days elapsed could be burned at the stake.

For conversos, then, the arrival of the Inquisition certainly focused the mind. They generally had plenty of enemies, any one of whom might decide to bear false witness. Or perhaps their cultural practices were sufficient for condemnation? Who knew? Most conversos, therefore, either fled or lined up to confess. Those who did neither risked an inquiry in which any kind of hearsay or evidence, no matter how old or suspicious, was acceptable.

Opposition in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to the Spanish Inquisition only increased. Many churchmen pointed out that it was contrary to all accepted practices for heretics to be burned without instruction in the Faith. If the conversos were guilty at all, it was merely of ignorance, not willful heresy. Numerous clergy at the highest levels complained to Ferdinand. Opposition to the Spanish Inquisition also continued in Rome. Sixtus's successor, Innocent VIII, wrote twice to the king asking for greater compassion, mercy, and leniency for the conversos – but to no avail. --- more

Re:So, how long

[gl4ss]

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??

Re:So, how long

[swalve]

I think the popular myth was that it was the Catholic church who was behind the killings, when, apparently, it was the Spanish government.

Re:So, how long

[khallow]

So why wasn't the King of Spain threatened with excommunication for this grievous abuse of power in the name of the Church? Why didn't the Church just nip that in the bud and refuse his requests for an Inquisition. Because his military support was necessary to keep Rome from being overrun by the Ottomans. They also had centuries to reverse that mistake and yet the Inquisition lingered until the mid-19th century.

Just because the Spanish Inquisition was run by the King of Spain doesn't absolve the Roman Catholic Church of its role in creating, legitimizing, and maintaining that odious organization.

Also, wouldn't you think that an actual Catholic education service would have better things to do than act as apologists for tyranny and terrible mistakes of the past?

Re:So, how long

[Trepidity]

Kind of a tangent, but fwiw the Vatican no longer handles its own prosecutions or imprisonments. Under the Lateran Treaty of 1929, the Vatican has autonomy in policing, but prosecution is handled by the Vatican handing the prisoner over to the Italian court system and requesting them to be prosecuted:

At the request of the Holy See, or by its delegate who may be appointed in single cases or permanently, Italy shall provide within her for the punishment of offences committed within the Vatican City, save and except when the author of the offence shall have taken refuge in Italian territory, in which event he shall immediately be proceeded against according to the provisions of the Italian laws.

Re:So, how long

[tnk1]

That is an unfortunate result of politics, and does represent a failing of the Church. Because of the politics of having to play nice with the Spanish (who were mostly allies during the Reformation), the Spanish Government got to use the Inquisition as a tool, and the Church had to shut up about it.

On the other hand, burning people for heresy, or witchcraft, was something everyone did at the time. Excommunication would have been unusual for what was common practice in the period. Our views on that practice are certainly better, but our judgement of how a reasonable person would view them in that time are anachronistic.

Also, when you talk about the Church excommunicating people for less, we need to remember that the Catholic Church in its 2000 year history has had high and low points in its power. In the 13th Century, a pope could put England or France under Interdict and bring kings to their knees. In the 15th Century, after the start of the Reformation, not so much. The Church was no longer universal and needed kings as allies, and those allies demanded concessions.

That said, many of the more baroque excesses attributed to the Inquisition were indeed mostly propaganda. The thing to consider is that the Inquisition itself was set up to at least bring some sort of due process to what might otherwise be settled by virulently anti-Jewish or anti-"heretic" mobs (frequently encouraged by the governments). To someone today, that seems like putting a safety placard on a torture device, but we need to remember that we didn't just spring all enlightened from the ground. The progress for human rights today springs from the same sources that would have tried to moderate religious violence though due process in a more brutal time. That this impulse was not sufficient to step in front of these abuses is unfortunate, but we've hardly stopped making compromises with certain ideals, even today.

Re:So, how long

[khallow]

The concept greatly predates the Magna Carta. For example, the first known code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi addresses abuse of power in the first paragraph of its preamble:

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

Abuse of power is not a recent concept, but a fundamental concept driving the very formation of law to the point that it is one of the three justifications given in the very first known written system of law.

If somehow we could hop in a time machine and go back to the first stories uttered by men, I think we would find that the idea of abuse of power is that old.

without the leaks

[Antiocheian]

"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.

Re:without the leaks

[YukariHirai]

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

I wouldn't bet against it ever happening, but the more likely problem is people reporting abuse internally and the people who are supposed to be responsible for dealing with it doing nothing about it. That's something that leaking official documents could bring to light.

Re:without the leaks

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

Re: without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholic church documents EVERYTHING. One of the saddest stories I've ever read was one about a man who won a court case in California and was handed the internal records of that diocese that proved it after years of being told he was lying, AND that many others in the church knew that it was true, and then finding his younger brother's name on the list of molested children as well.

Suspicious

[AmiMoJo]

I wonder if there is something about the last Pope they don't want leaked. Could it be he stepped down to avoid a standing pope being shown to have committed some horrible crime against children?

Re:Suspicious

[sg_oneill]

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.

Re:Suspicious

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.

I'm too lazy to hunt down a citation but my understanding is that the previous pope was put in charge of the committee to handle all of the internal allegations of pedo-priestiality long before he was made pope. So, basically all of the foot-dragging and cover-ups on that front leading up to the public lawsuits is on his head. I don't think his involvement was a secret though.

FWIW, it seems like this new pope is actually pretty saintly - avoiding much of the ostentatiousness of the office, washing the feet of a poor muslim woman instead of a priest on Maundy Thursday (a triple break with tradition) and being conciliatory to atheists (immediately disclaimed by the church PR office but not by the pope himself). All of the good stuff he's been doing makes me wonder if there is more to the story of this change in the laws, I am inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt pending better reporting.

Re:Suspicious

[Belial6]

Yes, when you know that a child is being molested, and you cover up for the molester, there is a name for you... Accomplice.

Re:Suspicious

[cffrost]

Since the Holy See is recognized as a nation at the UN it could be argued that the pope possesses sovereign and diplomatic immunity.

In other words, the sovereignty and diplomatic immunity of the Holy See may shield against prosecution for the Holy Feel.

Re:Suspicious

[dgatwood]

Almost completely untrue at every level.

The notion of a "personal relationship with God" is largely a post-Enlightenment concept, formed in the past three or four centuries. It is not "much of the point of Christianity", but rather, a modern protestant interpretation. The point of Christianity was defined many, many centuries before that, and to claim that Catholicism—the church from which all Christian denominations were ultimately derived—is not Christian is the height of absurdity, not to mention arrogance.

Catholicism (note the spelling) is, in part, a belief that there is wisdom in the masses (lowercase, meaning the body of the church proper, not the celebration) that cannot be gleaned purely through individual contemplation. For this reason, we worship together as a community. This does not preclude the personal relationship that you speak of, but rather strengthens it.

Veneration is not worship. The difference is subtle but crucial. No Catholic sees the pope as a god. Heck, the last one (Benedict) was downright unpopular among many Catholics. To even suggest that Catholics "worship themselves" or worship the pope is an appallingly inaccurate statement, even by Slashdot standards.

Finally, it is not true that the Church has always been corrupt. It, like all organizations of that size, may never have been 100% free of corruption, but there's a big difference between pervasive corruption and a handful of rogue elements acting improperly. The recent scandals are horrifying precisely because coverups of such actions by corrupt individuals are not the usual situation.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

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.

There's a verse for that!

[Gravis Zero]

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'

Re:Casting stones

[LordLucless]

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.

Re:Achieving Immortality

[cold fjord]

That's not achieving "immortality," that is achieving immorality. Big difference.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[inasity_rules]

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.

The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes on

[FreeUser]

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

The same thing happened in the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland, Germany, and a whole host of other countries. This is not a US problem, it's a world problem. The timing of the last pope stepping down was quite interesting...a week after an HBO documentary "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God" was released for general consumption, linking both the current Pope and his soon-to-be-sainted predecisor directly to the pedophile coverups and worse. In fact, Pope John-Paul II covered for his good pedophile friend up until he died and passed the mantle on to Ratzinger. I wonder if they'll make St. Pedo, I mean John-Paul II, the patron saint of children and knock the other guy aside?

One thing is sure, mothers will still be carting their kids off to the churches, never mind the danger to their offspring. That, more than anything, illustrates the power of indoctrination and denial.

http://www.hbo.com/#/schedule/detail/Mea+Maxima+Culpa%3A+Silence+in+the+House+of+God/562415

Lets excommunicate the Inquisition

[buntsai]

The Kings of Spain were threatened with excommunication on multiple occasions.

There was a huge tussle between the various catholic monarchs of Europe, including the English, French and Spanish Kings and the Holy Roman Emperor over who should decide things in the Catholic Church. There was a power grab at the time, and much of the particular viciousness of the Spanish Inquisition can be attributed to the pride, paranoia and desire for independence of the Spanish King.

Parallels can perhaps be drawn with the USA where the scale of slaughter of the native populations also increased rapidly with independence.
At one point, for example, even the Primate (head bishop) of Spain, the Archbishop of Toledo, fell out with Philip the II (King of Spain) and was arrested by the Spanish Inquisition in 1558. He was accused of heresy mainly on the basis of his book (Commentary on the Christian Catechism). However, this same book had been presented to and approved by the (counter-reformation / anti-Protestant) Council of Trent to which he had been the official Spanish envoy... The pope sent an ambassador ("nuncio extraordinary") with powers of excommunication for everyone involved and orders to physically extract the Archbishop. This didn't work. The king demanded a trial in Spain so the pope sent four bishops as the judges (each of whom later became popes themselves), but they were not accepted. The Spanish Inquisition were desperate for the bishop of Toledo to die, and he only survived because he was accompanied night and day by at least two members of his loyal staff (i.e different ones went at different times, on rotation).

After 7 years, the pope managed to extricate him following more threats, this time to excommunicate the whole of Spain. His trial was reconvened in Rome with the pope expecting a quick exoneration. However, important papers kept getting lost in Spain. Eventually Philip outlasted the trial, with the suspicious death of Pope Paul IV. There is no proof as such that the Spaniards killed the pope only conjecture: i.e. letters have been found in the historical archives in Valladolid, Spain explaining the great dishonour the pope had brought upon the Spanish Inquisition and how convenient it would be for the pope to die, etc...

Unfortunately for the Spanish Inquisition, the next pope lost patience and the Spanish Primate won his case.

Dubious justice but still better than Guantanamo...

Re:The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

The same thing happened in the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland, Germany, and a whole host of other countries. This is not a US problem, it's a world problem. The timing of the last pope stepping down was quite interesting...a week after an HBO documentary "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God" was released for general consumption, linking both the current Pope and his soon-to-be-sainted predecisor directly to the pedophile coverups and worse. In fact, Pope John-Paul II covered for his good pedophile friend up until he died and passed the mantle on to Ratzinger. I wonder if they'll make St. Pedo, I mean John-Paul II, the patron saint of children and knock the other guy aside?

One thing is sure, mothers will still be carting their kids off to the churches, never mind the danger to their offspring. That, more than anything, illustrates the power of indoctrination and denial.

http://www.hbo.com/#/schedule/detail/Mea+Maxima+Culpa%3A+Silence+in+the+House+of+God/562415

It's also a problem in public schools, boy scouts, universities and just about every church and institution. It's not specific to the catholic church. Pope John Paul II didn't cover for the priests, he actually instructed the US bishops to quit using canon law (church law) as a defense for their actions and to cooperate with the civil authorities.

You also leave out of your synopsis that up until the late 1980s, pedophilia was considered curable and many of these priests that were transferred were done so after they had been pronounced cured. It turns out that they were situational abusers and only appeared safe until some stressor or trigger presented itself.

None of this excuses what happened in the catholic church, but perpetuating the myth that it is just a catholic church issue is dangerous as the sexual abuse of minors is rampant and widespread in western culture.