Friday, January 2, 2009 | Reason : Political | print version

Print | Comments |

Vatican divorces from Italian law

by BBC

Thanks to Laurent for the link.

Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7807501.stm

The Vatican City State, the world's smallest sovereign state, has decided to divorce itself from Italian law.

Vatican legal experts say there are too many laws in Italian civil and criminal codes, and that they frequently conflict with Church principles.

With effect from New Year's Day, the Pope has decided that the Vatican will no longer automatically adopt laws passed by the Italian parliament.

All Italian laws will be examined one by one before they are adopted.

Under the Lateran treaties signed exactly 80 years ago between Italy and the Pope, and the Italian Parliamentary system, Italian laws were applied automatically.

Government confession

A senior Vatican Canon lawyer, Monsignor Jose Maria Serrano Ruiz, has gone on record as saying that Italian laws are too many, too unstable and too often conflict with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

The reaction from the Italian government has been that from a technical point of view, the Vatican may well be right.

An Italian government minister admitted Italian laws are often badly written and are sometimes difficult to understand.

An Italian parliamentary commission is at present working out how to delete tens of thousands of obsolete laws from Italy's civil code.

The Vatican has also decided to scrutinise international treaties before deciding whether or not to adhere to them.

It has recently refused to approve a United Nations declaration decriminalising homosexuality.

The wording went too far, Vatican officials said, in placing different sexual orientations on the same level.

Some legal observers believe that the Vatican is simply trying to assert its legal independence in cases involving for example, civil unions, divorce, living wills, or euthanasia.

If Italy were to legalise same sex marriages or euthanasia, for example, the Vatican would now be able to refuse to recognise that.

Posted: Friday, January 2, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 211 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #310865 by Dr Doctor on January 2, 2009 at 10:05 am

And yet you have pillocks trying to claim that the Pope was only pro-heterosexual and not anti-homosexual.

Any attempt to treat those of one sexual orientation as second class citizens under the law is egregious bigotry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/23/religion-catholicism-gay-nature

Being politically devious about it does not dilute the flagrancy of it.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

2. Comment #310867 by Tezcatlipoca on January 2, 2009 at 10:08 am

Time to declare The Vatican as a rogue nation...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

3. Comment #310870 by ty90 on January 2, 2009 at 10:13 am

Product embargo anyone?

Let me see....I will not buy a bible from them, check.

Other Comments by ty90

4. Comment #310872 by Paula Kirby on January 2, 2009 at 10:15 am

Well, the Vatican is a separate state, so I suppose it's free to adopt whichever laws it chooses.

But this raises an interesting question: shouldn't the Vatican be required to decide whether it's running a religion or a state, rather than mixing and matching according to what suits it best? I mean, if it's going to rely on its separate statehood status to decide which laws do and do not apply within its borders, well, ok, fair enough. But surely that should then mean it should abide by the conventions of international statesmanship and not interfere with the internal affairs of OTHER states?

Yet if Britain were to pass a law tomorrow permitting, for example, euthanasia, there is absolutely no doubt that the Vatican would be protesting most vociferously and publicly - and more than that, would be inciting its followers in the British public to rise up and protest against it and at the next election to vote the government out of office. It wouldn't respect our separate statehood and our right to pick and choose our OWN laws one little bit.

Could this possibly be a question of the Catholic church wanting to have its cake and eat it? Suuuuuuuuuuuurely not. The very idea!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

5. Comment #310874 by liberalartist on January 2, 2009 at 10:19 am

An Italian government minister admitted Italian laws are often badly written and are sometimes difficult to understand.

An Italian parliamentary commission is at present working out how to delete tens of thousands of obsolete laws from Italy's civil code.

I don't think this is their issue...it is the laws that protect women's reproductive rights and and stem cell research, etc. that are a problem for the Vatican. What would they have to do if they didn't have these things to complain about!

I don't really see how this is a problem, who lives in Vatican City besides the Pope and his entourage? Of course, Italy could always take back the city - that would be fun to see!

Other Comments by liberalartist

6. Comment #310875 by liberalartist on January 2, 2009 at 10:21 am

good point Paula!

Other Comments by liberalartist

7. Comment #310876 by Baron Scarpia on January 2, 2009 at 10:23 am

My initial reaction to this is that I'm all in favour of this. Italy will continue making laws - and the Vatican will reject them - and the Vatican's laws will grow increasingly divorced from the rest of the world -

Hopefully belong too long the Vatican will end up being the most legally backward nation in the world, an embarrassment to Catholics everywhere. And considering its population consists of only 824 people (according to the CIA World Factbook), the actual effect of its resistance will be almost negligible.

Or am I being too optimistic?

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

8. Comment #310877 by Dr Doctor on January 2, 2009 at 10:29 am

I'm afraid you are Baron Scarpia, on the effects that is. As the Vatican already "deports" people it doesn't much like being around into Rome, I expect that before long it will expel tourists and visitors on their usual spurious grounds.

Otherwise, why bother rejecting a statute that does not really get enforced within their state?

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

9. Comment #310881 by Baron Scarpia on January 2, 2009 at 10:32 am

before long it will expel tourists and visitors on their usual spurious grounds.

Surely not!

At least, surely not before they've got the tourists to open their wallets for admission fees, restaurant bills, souvenirs, etc, etc...

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

10. Comment #310882 by Dr Doctor on January 2, 2009 at 10:34 am

That noise was the sound of a nail being hit on the head.

Anyone else watch "Who has got Gods Millions?" where Lewellyn was thrown out just for asking what the gross income of the Catholic Church was?

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

11. Comment #310883 by Tezcatlipoca on January 2, 2009 at 10:37 am

If they are declared a rogue state then do you think we can get any "charities" that contribute to their maintenance shut down(qm) Round up various Cardinals, bishops etc and toss them in Gitmo. It would be amusing to see their assets frozen.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

12. Comment #310885 by rod-the-farmer on January 2, 2009 at 10:40 am

Well, they do have their own dress code, so, their own laws, NOT in synch with those of Italy, I guess that is OK. I am with Paula on the idea that they should stop applying pressure on "real" countries who pass laws about same-sex weddings etc. If they insist on doing that, I vote we ask our respective countries to apply pressure on the vatican to stop them passing laws regarding non-religious topics, like same-sex weddings. That is a societal issue having nothing to do with religion.

Oh, one other thing. Anyone know if the vatican accepted as-promulgated, Italian laws about child abuse ? Or did those get dropped off the list somehow, as "not applicable" ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

13. Comment #310888 by SOAS on January 2, 2009 at 10:40 am

Am I right in thinking that, as a Catholic you are always answerable to the pope.?

Is this not a perfectly sensible reason for not allowing our UK monarch To be Catholic?
Instead of rescinding this law, I think it should be extended to Cabinet members, cos we then have elected UK politicians that have to act according to the pope.. Or am I just being paranoid?.

Other Comments by SOAS

14. Comment #310890 by Dr Doctor on January 2, 2009 at 10:43 am

Worries about papists answering directly to the pope and not to the national interest have long concerned merrie old England.

Frankly, I think it is a valid concern about any zealot and their subservience to a religious leader and not just the idiotic and unashamedly imperialistic Roman Catholics of yesteryear and tomorrowyear.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

15. Comment #310891 by liberalartist on January 2, 2009 at 10:45 am

SOAS, I also think that is a valid concern, afterall, is the US a Bishop said that John Kerry wasn't a real Catholic and Priests have told their congregations not to vote for Obama. They do their best to influence elections and politicians.

Other Comments by liberalartist

16. Comment #310893 by Quetzalcoatl on January 2, 2009 at 10:47 am

The Vatican a rogue state? Surely a US-led invasion is imminent? After all, the Vatican has a significant stockpile of WMDs: Weapons of Mass Delusion.....

:-)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

17. Comment #310899 by HandyGeek on January 2, 2009 at 11:10 am

Proving even further just how ridiculous religion really is.

Other Comments by HandyGeek

18. Comment #310900 by schmeer on January 2, 2009 at 11:15 am

A senior Vatican Canon lawyer, Monsignor Jose Maria Serrano Ruiz, has gone on record as saying that Italian laws are too many, too unstable and too often conflict with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

When asked to compare the Italian laws in question to several recent written works by the Vatican the good Monsignor had this to say:
"Holy shit! We wrote these fucking things'"

Other Comments by schmeer

19. Comment #310901 by Tyler Durden on January 2, 2009 at 11:17 am

The Vatican City State, the world's smallest sovereign state, has decided to divorce itself from Italian law.

Well, it divorced itself from reality a long time ago, so this is no real surprise.

Some legal observers believe that the Vatican is simply trying to assert its legal independence in cases involving for example, civil unions, divorce, living wills, or euthanasia.

Or rational thinking of any sort.

Emperor Constantine would be most pleased.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

20. Comment #310902 by Tyler Durden on January 2, 2009 at 11:20 am

And are all written in bloody Italian :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

21. Comment #310903 by janosj on January 2, 2009 at 11:20 am

So the Vatican State is allowed to divorce from the Italian State but forbids any other type of legal divorce. Joseph Ratzinger is a Captain - not democratically chosen but machomatically and by selfpromotion - on a ship that will be floating for ever and ever and etcetera, etcetera

Other Comments by janosj

22. Comment #310909 by fsm1965 on January 2, 2009 at 11:37 am

dumb question: is the vatican part of the EU? (I know they want god in the EU's constitution), just wondered whether they were subject to human rights laws.

Other Comments by fsm1965

23. Comment #310910 by dloubet on January 2, 2009 at 11:40 am

What will the citizens of The Vatican be called? Vaticanites? Vaticanns?

What will the citizenship status be of Catholics in general? Can they all claim dual citizenship?

Other Comments by dloubet

24. Comment #310911 by Metch on January 2, 2009 at 11:42 am

Is it just me, or does the pope not obviously look like a crazy, attention seeking, delusional psychopath?

Other Comments by Metch

25. Comment #310912 by Dr Doctor on January 2, 2009 at 11:43 am

he Vatican, covering only 0.44 km2 in the heart of Rome, is the smallest state in the world. It is an independent, sovereign state and not a member of the European Union. Nor does it belong to the Community or its customs territory. The Vatican’s customs rules are based on a 1930 agreement with Italy which exempts the Vatican from all Community duties and taxes. The small amount of goods originating in the Vatican and exported to Italy is exempt from duty and subject to a preferential arrangement.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

26. Comment #310914 by Rodger T on January 2, 2009 at 11:44 am

What will the citizens of The Vatican be called?

Dickheads?

Other Comments by Rodger T

27. Comment #310915 by Brian English on January 2, 2009 at 11:44 am

has gone on record as saying that Italian laws are too many, too unstable and too often conflict with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yes, but on the other hand, the Coffee's good and the signorine belle, or so I've been told.

Other Comments by Brian English

28. Comment #310916 by Tyler Durden on January 2, 2009 at 11:45 am

Is The Vatican part of the EU?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

To join the EU, a country must meet the Copenhagen criteria, defined at the 1993 Copenhagen European Council. These require a stable democracy which respects human rights and the rule of law; a functioning market economy capable of competition within the EU; and the acceptance of the obligations of membership, including EU law. Evaluation of a country's fulfillment of the criteria is the responsibility of the European Council.

"which respects human rights"

So that's a no then!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

29. Comment #310918 by Mayhemm on January 2, 2009 at 11:47 am

I like the rogue nation idea. Bring on the embargoes, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, etc. Might be able to cut off their electricity too. After all, they deny the science that developed it.

That aught to stop their plans for world domination.

Other Comments by Mayhemm

30. Comment #310921 by root2squared on January 2, 2009 at 11:52 am

I'm sure the new laws will mean that anyone working on the Sabbath (Sunday ?) will be put to death, then?

Other Comments by root2squared

31. Comment #310922 by Tyler Durden on January 2, 2009 at 11:57 am

I wonder what Italy got in the divorce settlement. Sure hope it took The Vatican for €€€s, it can surely afford it.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

32. Comment #310925 by Rodger T on January 2, 2009 at 11:59 am

The pope fucked Italy, and now he never calls....................................bitch

Other Comments by Rodger T

33. Comment #310926 by Brian English on January 2, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Sorry 2, you're thinking of Protestants. Catholics are largely divorced from the bible as a source of doctrine. They have this neo-platonic, aristotelean, thomistic layerings that separate doctrinal stuff from what the bible says.

They don't oppose homosexuality, for example, because of Leviticus, but because according to Aristotle, all things have a purpose by their nature, which Aquinas changed to all things have a purpose by their nature, given by God. And youu willy has a purpose of procreating in marriage (according to Aquinas), not as part of a healthy relationship, gay or straight. After all, they'll deny a devout hetero couple a Catholic marriage if their intention isn't to have kiddies. As nature (God) intended.....;)

Other Comments by Brian English

34. Comment #310928 by Dr Doctor on January 2, 2009 at 12:05 pm

sola scriptura vs sacred tradition.

The Catholic Church is the forerunner to the EULA.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

35. Comment #310929 by Brian English on January 2, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Dr Doctor, if the church was into sola scriptura, those cross dressing clerics would have to tear out all those idols you see in the churches and stop venerating the many demi-gods that they've accumulated over the centuries among other things.

Other Comments by Brian English

36. Comment #310930 by root2squared on January 2, 2009 at 12:10 pm

33. Comment #310926 by Brian English

Ah I see...thank you Brian.

Other Comments by root2squared

37. Comment #310931 by Brian English on January 2, 2009 at 12:14 pm

2, your thanks are probably misplaced. That's how I understand it. I'm sure Carto could give a much better precis on how and where all the doctrinal stuff came into being as for some odd reason he reads that stuff.....

Other Comments by Brian English

38. Comment #310932 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Comment #310926 by Brian English

I do find it odd that popes who claim that contraception and homosexuality are unnatural seem to have few qualms about travelling around the world in artificial metal tubes at 35,000 feet.

And the previous pope seemed to have a lustful attraction to runways.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #310933 by sunbeamforjesus on January 2, 2009 at 12:17 pm

I have read through this and normally I try to keep a sense of proportion in my comments.This time,after reading this I can only say FUCK THESE FUCKING PEOPLE,FUCK THEIR FUCKING ARROGANCE AND FUCK THEIR FUCKING FEUHRER.wHEN WILL THE REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD WAKE UP AND BAN THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT!!!!!
I am not proud of this post
BUT FUCK IT I FEEL SICK OF THESE FUCKING PEOPLE!!!

Other Comments by sunbeamforjesus

40. Comment #310934 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Comment #310933 by sunbeamforjesus

BUT FUCK IT I FEEL SICK OF THESE FUCKING PEOPLE!!!

You have my sympathies, but I would be cautious about banning bullshit. Around 1/3 of my posts would be illegal! I think I am a decent person at heart - do you want to see me taken off to jail?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #310935 by Brian English on January 2, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Steve, I too find that a contradiction, however, perhaps metal has the purpose of being molded into stuff at the hands of man, etc, all part of a rich tapestry. ;)

I'm not claiming the reasons they offer, even if water-tight and coherent are justifications (I think they're stupid). The whole idea that everything has a purpose isn't an explanation it's begging the question. How does one know this unless one created it with a purpose? Obviously for a believer who has pimped their skepticism, there was a creation event, and divine providence implies a plan or purpose, but for those who don't believe that load of old cobblers, it's just rubbish. Which is why they should stay out of politics that concerns more than believers. E.g. secular democracies. I will allow that they can have whatever policies they like in the Vatican enclave.

Other Comments by Brian English

42. Comment #310936 by Dr Doctor on January 2, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Amongst other happy landings, Steve.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

43. Comment #310938 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Comment #310935 by Brian English

As ever, I contemplate these things at a lower intellectual level than you. I was remembering a Russell Howard joke in which two gay men were snogging in a plane, and a fellow passenger tried to stop them by calling them unnatural, and one turned round and said "mate, you are flying!"

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #310943 by Brian English on January 2, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Steve, genius. My reply to such situations where people suggest that natural = good is to mention that snake venom is natural or some such.

Other Comments by Brian English

45. Comment #310944 by sunbeamforjesus on January 2, 2009 at 12:27 pm

steve
I would hate to see you sharing a cell with a priest that Cormac Murphy O'Connor had been unable to protect and I agree bullshit has it's place in the pantheon,but I could not ennunciate my feelings on this topic in any other way,so help me Dog!
so:FUCK THESE FUCKING XTIANS!

Other Comments by sunbeamforjesus

46. Comment #310945 by Don_Quix on January 2, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Excellent! Does this mean we can commence air strikes on the Vatican?

Other Comments by Don_Quix

47. Comment #310948 by Brian English on January 2, 2009 at 12:29 pm

FUCK THESE FUCKING XTIANS!

And you call yourself a sun beam for jeebus. For shame! ;)

Other Comments by Brian English

48. Comment #310949 by Haz849 on January 2, 2009 at 12:30 pm

The Catholic Church have moral teachings now?

Other Comments by Haz849

49. Comment #310950 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Comment #310943 by Brian English

I was thinking along the same lines, only in terms of something more devastating like influenza. If the pope supports natural replication, I assume he does not have a flu jab.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #310951 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Comment #310944 by sunbeamforjesus

Well, OK then. But remember to use contraception.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last