Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by csimon
I realize this may be going off topic, but why allow him to participate in Confession at all?
This is an arcane practice that allowed the church to get dirt on people so they would have more power anyways.
You're best to teach your son that he can talk to God directly and do his own prayers and Rosaries to absolve his sins.
Besides, when I participated in Confessions, the priest was on the other side of a wall with a small window we spoke through, so I don't see the threat there anyways. Glad to hear you're being cautious though.
Originally posted by Bodhi7
reply to post by FlyersFan
I'm not sure the catholic church would risk getting rid of a pope that people actually support, even if they disagree with him.
Not to mention the damage it would do to the morale of catholics in general if they needed another election so quickly.
Why? Why does he need people to come back to the Church? If everybody (exaggeration) thinks the Pope is swimming in money in the underground vaults, what is his need?
He needs support from the sheeple to come back to the beloved church. something is amiss here
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Afterthought
I would put that as # 832 on my list of things to do as a Pope. Not coincidentally, that's the population of Vatican City. How many people under 16 do you think we're dealing with?
The first thing he should do is raise the age of consent in Vatican City from 12 to 16.
Further, there is a real question about 12 as the age of consent. I know it's only Wiki, but it makes sense
The "Law of the Source of Law" of the Vatican State requires that any Italian laws must first defer to divine law, to Papal decrees, and to canon law. As the Vatican understands divine law, all sex outside of marriage is illicit, and therefore the only lawful consent that may be made for sexual relations is the consent between a husband and a wife. Canon 1083 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that "A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage." Thus, assuming the couple is married, the minimum age of consent for lawful sexual relations according to Vatican law is 14 for females, and 16 for males. (Emphasis added)
I went looking someplace that couldn't have been influenced by the Church and found this in the London Progressive Journal:
That wiki article is information circulated by the church. Believe it if you will, it is rubbish. The new Pope could raise the age of consent with a few words. So, why doesn't he, and don't say because it is not necessary, history shows otherwise.
Notice that Italy, which surrounds Vatican City, has the same age of consent (14). No one seems to be complaining about all the other countries with the same age of consent as Vatican City, or even younger. Also note that the speaker points out that there is no evidence that a lower age of consent has an effect on child abuse.
The following is the text of Peter Tatchell's speech to the Sex and the Law conference in Sheffield on 23 September 2010, organised the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health.
In about 20 European nations, the age of consent is lower than 16. The minimum age (with some qualifications) is, for example, 13 in Spain; 14 in Germany, Austria, Portugal, Italy and the Vatican (where it was 12 until very recently); and 15 in France and Poland. There is no evidence that these lower ages result in more teen pregnancies, sexual infections or child abuse.
Would you let them go to Spain?
Tell you one thing, I would not let my 12 year old have a sleep over in the Vatican.
Italians have chosen 14. Most of the citizens of Vatican City are Italians. Doesn't seem unreasonable that the age would be the same.
For another, what is the problem with raising the age of consent in the Vatican?
How in the world can you know that? What citizen of Vatican City has been accused of child abuse in Vatican City? And if any have been, which I doubt, how do you know what happened to them?
The answer is very simple. As long as it is only Church law it is only the Church who slaps the perpetrator's wrists. No long jail time or any of that nastiness.
No reason to put embassies in quotes. The Church does have embassies, just like all other countries. The embassy of any country is considered territory of that country. I don't see the point. Unless, perhaps you think a church building is an embassy. It isn't and Vatican City has no legal authority there.
Remember also that the Laws of the Vatican hold sway across the world in all of the Churches 'Embassies'.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
It says that the decisive action includes 'due process against those who are guilty'. I take that as to say ... 'no shuffling them around ... have the law prosecute them'.
Originally posted by monkcaw
This begs the question: was infiltration a plot to undermine the RCC? .
Originally posted by Afterthought
I realize this may be going off topic, but why allow him to participate in Confession at all? This is an arcane practice that allowed the church to get dirt on people so they would have more power anyways.
Originally posted by sd211212
he is acting just how the "last" pope is predicted to act. He needs support from the sheeple to come back to the beloved church. something is amiss here