The Catholic Church And The Un

The Holy See owes its participation in the UN to an accident of history - the membership of Vatican City to the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union. The Vatican is a member of these unions because it owns postal and radio services. Soon after its formation, the UN invited these organisations and their members to attend UN sessions on an ad hoc basis, which the Vatican did.

According to Archbishop Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, a former Vatican diplomat who wrote the authoritative work on the Holy See and international relations, the Holy See "exists and operates within the international community as the juridicial personification of the Church."



:)

Would Vatican City be allowed to join whatever they expressed their politics to be? (provided it doesn't go against the UN charter)

If the Vatican City applied now, they wouldn't get in.



:)

Do you know specifically why not? or are you basing this on the comment made in 1944

Quote:

---

the Vatican would not be capable of fulfilling all the responsibilities of membership

---

from your article

When the UN was formed, things were very different, the Catholic Church was a powerful institution, it ran countries by proxy. That is not so now. If membership were to come up now, to the exclusion of other religions, there would be uproar. There is no way it would pass the security council, can you imagine China voting for them?


:)

PS. Thanx for the software.

This post is filling quicker than I can read it, to be honest this is news to me, and I find it a bit disturbing, I think the Roman Catholic church under whatever veil it decideds to use should be removed.

I acknowledge the point of countries with little or no division between state and government, however they are, for want of a better word active countries with international trade, etc. I realise this is small point but I really think we are dealing with the thin edge of wedge here.
Looking at America and Britian and the histroy of Cults, with typically tax exempt status being a bench mark for recognition, I think if some religious organisation set there sights on the UN this could have a herendous effect on world politics (assuming of course it isn't already in a terrible state)

My approach would be very much all religions can do this or none, and I personally would perfer none, even the bible makes distinctions between Church and Government (expressing that whilst spereate government belongs soverignly to God not the Church) I think these distinctions are wise and should exist

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@17 October 2003 - 12:29
The Catholic church is in the unique position of being the only religion allowed to vote at the United Nations. The decisions they make have far reaching consequences for millions of people, Catholic and non-Catholic. I find this disgraceful, it should be stopped, every religion should be treated equally. Either they all vote, or none of them, my preference would be none.

The Catholic Church and the United Nations.


:)

---

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I have to say right from the start I couldn't agree more.

Religion and politics should be kept separate.

Good spot Billy, I wasn't aware of this anomaly.

I shall read the rest of this with interest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@17 October 2003 - 14:08
When the UN was formed, things were very different, the Catholic Church was a powerful institution, it ran countries by proxy.

---

This is maybe a bit off topic, but where i'm from this is a very hot issue, and I would argue roman still does run countries by proxy, though it is not unique in this essentailly morality is defined through religion and religion will always have this influence on the government once again touching on my earlier post of the illusive nature between religion and state, the point is religion inherently having this power, means it's probably best kept as that, a somewhat illusive realtionship but never allowed to formally tie with state (I realsise this is idealistic, but only from working form this stage backwards, i would argue, can we really untangle this mess inherented from centuries before)

(edited for spelling as usual)

The crux of my argument is the fact that Vatican City is a sovereign state as ensured apparently by the Lateran treaty. The fact that its name in the UN has been changed to Holy See is not helpful to my argument, but it doesn't blow it out of the water either, if you accept that the Vatican/Holy See 's presence in the UN is neither wholly as a religion (though the politics it espouses are entirely those of a religion) nor as a state then its likewise mixture of power as an official observer seems fairly acceptable.
As for China allowing it, hmm, I dunno, I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy about it, but equally its not a big concession and it may make them look bad if they vetoed.
Btw Blackhatknight where are you from?

It's all a matter of equality being done, and being seen to be done. The same for everyone.

Did you know, catholics still cannot marry members of the royal family? And the queen is the head of the Anglican church only? In 2003!

All these anomilies need ironing out. Look what's happening in the world at the moment over perceived bias against a religion.

And really, to argue that the catholic church is a state, by any definition, is absurd. And to think The Lateran Treaty was signed by Mussolini makes it even absurder. (?)


:)