Vatican no longer will abide by Italian law

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Vatican no longer will abide by Italian law

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7807501.stm]
Vatican divorces from Italian law[/url]

Quote:

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. ...

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

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....

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.

It's very interesting that the Popes and their minions had no trouble abiding by the Lateran treaties throughout the entire Mussolini Fascist era

It is long past time for this anti-human institution to be wound up.

 

 

lagatta

Yeah, I just saw that story; I'll be perusing the Italian media for more on this. Indeed the Vatican went along with all the fascist laws - including the so called "Racial Laws". The monarchy was ousted in large part due to the latter collaboration; I think the Vatican should have lost its special status as well, but doubt the new Italian Republic had the force or political will to do that.

Like all other patriarchal religions, the Catholic Church has the right to spout its ... patriarchal beliefs, that is a part of freedom of religion, But the state status of the Vatican, a remnant of the Papal State prior to Italian unification, is another matter. Obvious Berlusconi and his fascist friends (including the outright neofascist mayor of Rome) are not going to be challenging the arrangement, but I don't see any other force prepared to do it either.

The Italian "Racial Laws", patterned after the Nazi ones, would have been high farce if the consequences hadn't been so dire. All those pink-skinned, flaxen, snub-nosed "Aryan" Italians...

Unionist

Lagatta, do you know whether homosexuality is criminalized in Italy?

lagatta

No, it isn't, but the so-called "centre-left", unlike their Spanish-state counterparts, had been most timorous about approving same-sex marriage rights. And obviously the right-wing is not going to do it.

It is illegal to criminalise homosexuality in the European Union - but Italy eliminated criminalisation of homosexuality long before, except under the Fascists and the Nazi puppet government. I don't know how this played out in terms of the viciously homophobic and misogynist government in Poland.

Thus, (except under fascism and Nazi-fascism) a long history of "tolerance" but backwardness in terms of equaity. Remember that the Church has a long history of both anti-gay precepts and great hypocrisy in that area.

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

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

lagatta wrote:
I think the Vatican should have lost its special status as well, but doubt the new Italian Republic had the force or political will to do that.

 

Well, there is the tricky matter of international law.  Whether the Vatican remnant of the Papal States ought to be an independent country or not is an interesting philosophical discussion.  In the meantime, it is an independent country, and the Italian government can't just decide to change that unilaterally.  Legally, it would be no different than the US deciding to annex Canada.

martin dufresne

You mean it hasn't...???

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:
You mean it hasn't...???

Laughing

Malcolm may be right from a juridical standpoint.

Speaking spiritually, however, I would favour the Church of England annexing the Vatican.

While the CofE has a long way to go on these issues, it has the advantages of: 1) not being entirely above the law; 2) being at least of several minds on the topics concerned; 3) making no claim to infallibility.

Furthermore, it would be perhaps a unique contribution to reunification (although I promise to take no credit for proposing it).