Printable View
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.
:)
Umm, I didn't read the article but i'm guessing this is because the Vatican is a state? For instance what about all the muslim countries where there is no distinction between church and state (ie the leaders are religious leaders) I'm sure there must be one of them somewhere in the UN :unsure: obviously they are bigger than the Vatican, most countries are, however, size shouldn't necessarily be important. Can you give a good reason why the Vatican should be excluded, other than you disagree with the policies of the Catholic church?
I suggest you read the article, and also read this
;)
It's the "Holy See" that is a member of the UN, not the Vatican.
The Catholic Church should have NGO status like the other religious groups.
Quote:
Originally posted by Billy's Article
The Holy See is the government of the Vatican City.
Quote:
as a result of confusion regarding the use of the interchangeable use of the terms Holy See and Vatican City, the secretary-general of the UN and the Holy See reached an agreement that relationship should be henceforth understood as being between the UN and the Holy See
As far as i can see it gets elevated rights because it is a very small state that falls somewhere in between and gets powers accordingly in between state and religion. Its power also seems to be restricted to making nasty comments, which it could make publically anywayQuote:
It gives the holder some of the privileges of a state at the UN,
Its hardly awe inspiring power.Quote:
Given its role at the UN, these official objections, entered formally into the final report of the conference, serve to weaken support for the conclusions of the majority.
Again i would point to other countries where there also is no separation between church and stateQuote:
The question of the Vatican's statehood has been debated without definitive conclusion in diplomatic circles for most of the century.
The Holy See is a Non-member State Permanent Observer at the United Nations. This is a rarely used designation shared only by Switzerland. It gives the holder some of the privileges of a state at the UN, such as being able to speak and vote at UN conferences. No other religion is granted this elevated status. Other religions participate at the UN like most other non-state entities - as non-governmental organisations.
A bit of selective copy\pasting there ilw.
Edit:
[ilw]
Again i would point to other countries where there also is no separation between church and state
How many "States" have no citizens?
Not really the meaning is still the same, it gets some of the powers of a state and some not.
Edit: According to Yahoo's World Factbook Vatican city has 880 residents (estimated in 2000 :rolleyes: ) it is also quite multicultural and pop. is growing at about 1% per annum.
The question of the Vatican's statehood has been debated without definitive conclusion in diplomatic circles for most of the century. However, it is not the Vatican that is a member of the UN, but the Holy See. The Holy See is by definition a "non-territorial religious entity." It is not a state--it is the government of the Roman Catholic church. The Holy See also clearly does not meet the established international legal criteria for statehood, which include a defined territory and permanent citizenry. The Holy See has no defined territory, it is a government, not a territorial entity. As such, it also does not have a citizenry.
CFFC, (not Chelsea Football Club!)
:)
Quote:
The Holy See is the government of the Vatican City.
Quote:
The Lateran Treaty was designed to compensate the pope for the 1870 annexation of the Papal States, which consisted of 17,218 square miles in central Italy, and to guarantee the "indisputable sovereignty" of the Holy See by granting it physical territory.
It seems to me that the Holy See is the UN member instead of Vatican City, only to simplifiy matters.Quote:
as a result of confusion regarding the use of the interchangeable use of the terms Holy See and Vatican City, the secretary-general of the UN and the Holy See reached an agreement that relationship should be henceforth understood as being between the UN and the Holy See.
To put your own question back to you ..
Can you give a good reason why the Vatican should be <s>excluded</s> included ...?
:)
Well the onus is really on you to give a good reason for kicking them out, and so far all the arguments you've put forward are based on the fact that for some reason they went with the name Holy See instead of Vatican City and the fact that you disagree with their policies.
In order to join the UN:
the charter whose obligations they must meet can be found hereQuote:
How does a new State or Government obtain recognition by the United Nations? How does a country join the UN as a Member State?
The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.
Membership in the Organization, in accordance with Paragraph 1 of article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations, is open to all peace loving States which accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The procedure is briefly as follows:
* The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a formal declaration stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.
* The application is considered first by the Security Council. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of nine of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members- China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America have voted against the application.
* - If the council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State, and membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.
At each session, the General Assembly considers the credentials of all representatives of Member states participating in that session. During such consideration, which routinely takes place first in the 9 member Credentials Committee but can also arise at other times, the issue can be raise whether a particular representative has been accredited by the Government actually in power. If controverted, this issue is ultimately decided by a majority vote in the Assembly. It should be noted that the normal change of Governments, as through a democratic election, does not raise any issues concerning the credentials of the representative of the State concerned.
This fact sheet has been issued by the Public Inquiries Unit, Department of Public information, United Nations. Tel: 212-963-4475; fax: 212-963-0071 e-mail: [email protected]
I reckon Vatican City would be allowed. Of course it hinges on the other countries accepting the Vatican as a member, but in order to be seen favourably politically, i wouldn't bet against it.
I would imagine the criteria for being kicked out are a lot further off being met by the Vatican
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 1944from your articleQuote:
the Vatican would not be capable of fulfilling all the responsibilities of membership
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
I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I have to say right from the start I couldn't agree more.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.
:)
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.
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)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.
(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. (?)
:)
As I said earlier, keep politics and religion totally seperate in my opinion. Catholic Church at the UN, I can see no justification for that.
Bishops in the upper house. Why is that, do they have the right to veto the commons and block laws being passed.
It may be absurd to you, but if other countries recognise it as a state then thats apparently good enough for the UN and its good enough for me.
A cynic would say that even without religion we, as a race would cause just as much strife and suffering around the world.
btw i would like to say that I also think the vatican having a special place in the UN is a quirk of history and one that should be rectified, but this topic would have been very dull wouldn't it? :P