Arrest the pope!

[Scooter]

What about all the centuries during which the "States of the Church" occupied a substantial portion of the Italian peninsula? Were all of the states that recognized the sovereignty of and established diplomatic relations with the Holy See during that time (including the U.S.) wrong to do so? Were all of the treaties entered into by it invalid? If the Holy See was not a sovereign entity, then to whom did the territory of the States of the Church belong? And if the Holy See was sovereign then, why would it be different now, except for the size of its temporal domain?

[thestoat]

Have you heard they have introduced a new sign to be placed near churches in the UK?

[Big RR]

Scooter--I think your point about the territories of the vatican (the papal states) was the reason the US recognized the sovereignty of the vatican from 1789 through 1870 (although I believe there were not always formal diplomatic relations with the vatican during that time). All formal recognition ended when the papal states were ceded to Italy, at least until 1984 when Reagan/Congress thought we should reestablish relations. Was it wrong to have the diplomatic relations at the outset of our nation? Not knowing the politics or structure of the Vatican at that time I cannot say for certain. The fact that the recognition ended so abruptly makes me think the loss of the states somehow changed the equation, and I can say I din't understand the situation well enough to have an informed opinion on that question.

But I do think that not all territory needs to be part of a nation anymore than unincorporated land needs to be part of a town or city. Clearly the papal states could have been seen as property of the corporation of the RC church, and the corporation need not be sovereign to own territory. The territory on which UN buildings sit in NYC and the Hague are not, as i recall, part of the US or Switzerland, but are internationally recognized territory not part of any country. other territory could also be seen as art of no country.

On top of that, I think our ideas of sovereignty have changed; we no longer see territories and countries as the possession of a monarch or emperor or other sovereign in the way we did in the 18th-19th centuries. At that time, the pope could easily have been seen as an emperor who controlled territories and the vatican could be seen as a sovereign state; this changed when those estates ceased to be controlled by him but were (eventually) ceded to their true sovereign, the people. TO say someone sitting on a throne is reason enough to say a sovereign nation exists is a bit outdated.

[Andrew D]

The Papal States had real, nontransitory populations. The Vatican does not.

Of course naturalized citizens are real citizens. Provided, of course, that they are citizens of an actual nation. Vatican "citizens" are not.

Should the Vatican be admitted as a Member of the UN? So that Roman Catholics around the world can be doubly represented in the General Assembly? Of course not. Why? Because it is not a nation.

[Long Run]

There is also in the U.S. a legal doctrine -- known variously as "alter ego," "piercing the corporate veil," "sham," and probably other terms -- which enables plaintiffs to blast through the walls of the corporate form and hold liable those who are ultimately responsible for the culpable conduct. That doctrine should be employed against the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican is ultimately responsible for the Roman Catholic Church's conduct. And it ought to be held responsible. Everything that it possesses should be returned to the rightful owners.

In the northwest diocese bankruptcy case, the court respected the corporate ownership, so any parish that had its property owned by the diocese corporate entity, was part of the bankruptcy estate. For the one parish corporation that had ownership of its own property, it was excluded. The claims were against the diocese because that was the decision maker on where the priests were located. If the Vatican can be shown to have similar responsibility, it shouldn't be necessary to try to pierce the veil, it can be held directly liable for assisting in the commissions of crimes.

[Andrew D]

The Vatican has exploited the corporate form to shield itself from liability. That is exactly why the corporate veil needs piercing.