Is the catholic church a pseudo government or actual government? (churches, prophecy)

[cncracer]

I was reading an article on civil lawsuits against the catholic church and saw where their defense is not based on innocence, or protection from their gods, but rather because they are a political system with diplomatic immunity. With this defense have they passed from a pseudo government to an actual government, and if so is the intrusion into other countries not just a form of imperial invasion?

[ovcatto]

With the signing of the Lateran Treaty in 1929, The Vatican became a sovereign nation with full diplomatic rights and immunities. The Pope is recognized as the legitimate head of state. That doesn't indemnify the various Churches, orders or dioceses from civil suits or criminal prosecution but the Pope as head of state is.

[DASULAR17]

Hmmmm it's difficult to say as it is a hypothetical question although, most might agree it is governed by the Papacy ,Canon Law,encyclicals and dogmas although directed primarily to it's flock. Prophecy has Rome as the center of a worldwide religion headed by anti-christ and at that time in history the revised Roman empire will be the only govenment (actual government). Rome presently is a disconnected Vatican based voice of Catholicism that the West for example is clueless as to what that even means and Catholics are primarily Catholics by birth worldwide having little knowledge of their faith or biblical comprehension. It's a religion. Not yet a government. It's sad to know that much energy by great spiritually dedicated clergy (Nuns ,priests,and deacons and brothers) wasted their lives unkowingly for a pagan based religion (natually combined with many truths). Mediators,divinities,intercessory prayer to dieties/dead,man elected sainthoods,indulgences,relics,symbols,pagan ceremonies it's insane and a study in bizzare human behavior. I can't even go there as an ex-catholic spending
every ridiculous morning in grade school at 8am to satisfy an old priests requirement that he punches out two masses a day at the cost of teaching scripture
nurturing kids in the faith or giving years of lessons only to have us go to school and tackle the catechism a manmade bunch of memorizing more ridiculous
manmade meaningless foo foo.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by cncracer

I was reading an article on civil lawsuits against the catholic church and saw where their defense is not based on innocence, or protection from their gods, but rather because they are a political system with diplomatic immunity. With this defense have they passed from a pseudo government to an actual government, and if so is the intrusion into other countries not just a form of imperial invasion?

I wouldn't take this as an admission that they did it but they're immune, rather as a procedural attempt to get things taken care of the easiest way possible. If they can convince a court that there's no jurisdiction over the church it bypasses a lot of other potential legal wrangling. If this fails, then you'll see the "we didn't do it" defense start to mount. But depending on how they go about it, I could see that even mounting a defense based on facts could be confused as an admission that the case has legal merit to begin with? Not a lawyer at all but maybe they're thinking along those lines.

[jackmccullough]

I think the soverign immunity argument is bogus.

The crimes of the pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests were not committed in their role as the government of the geographic entity known as Vatican City, but in their role as the hierarchy of an organization that employed those popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests.

This is analogous to the case relating to Bill Clinton, in which the Supreme Court clearly held that even the president of the United States is not immune to personal civil liability, and to the need to defend a civil action, arising from nongovernmental activities.

[DASULAR17]

I would like to retract a comment I erroneously made regarding the Catholic church claiming their beliefs to be a form of bizarre behavior.
I have recently received a message about "religions" that addresses the subject of understanding and perceiving "truths" in lieu of making
false characterizations about their non scriptural errors being a behavior issue. It's a knowledge and truth based consideration NOT behavior.
I'm always embarrassed to be in error, but I'm always learning daily. Regarding the main question, I must also concede that I was wrong about the Catholic Church not being a government research has shown that Rome and the Papacy is the central ecclesiastical "government" of the
Roman Catholic Church, thereby having an umbrella doctrine worldwide encompassing all Catholic dioceses, albeit associated churches. Good question and tough to dissect. It is essential to understand that Catholics accept Christ as personal savior and are a "christian " religion full of truths, but claims to be the one true apostolic church, it is tainted by many ideologies,paganism and manufactured deities/mediators. Not a false relgion, but not mainstream christianity and
not totally in the loop.

[gabfest]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

With the signing of the Lateran Treaty in 1929, The Vatican became a sovereign nation with full diplomatic rights and immunities. The Pope is recognized as the legitimate head of state. That doesn't indemnify the various Churches, orders or dioceses from civil suits or criminal prosecution but the Pope as head of state is.

well, I think we have our answer conclusively to the OP's question...the answer is yes.

[Thomas R.]

The Vatican is a government, as has been stated, and I believe has observer status at the UN.

I would think though that legally you can try any bishop or archbishop you want so long as they are not officially diplomats of the Vatican. That's just maybe not as "satisfying" if your goal is to "bring down the Church" but it might be satisfying if your goal is more about punishing people who committed crimes.

[JerZ]

Someone (GSTroop, I think...sorry to single you out, GST, but it's for a good reason!) said on another forum that the pope's involvement probably predates his becoming pope. That would make it easier to prosecute, I'd think, because it would eliminate the diplomatic immunity issue entirely. He committed the crimes before he was the head of the Vatican.

Personally, I think these loopholes the church is digging for are positively shameful. Children got hurt. Crimes were committed and accessories to those crimes were/are also criminals...and that's it.

Prosecute. I don't care how clean the person looks nor how tall his hat is. Prosecute. A crime is a crime is a crime.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

The Vatican is a government, as has been stated, and I believe has observer status at the UN.

I would think though that legally you can try any bishop or archbishop you want so long as they are not officially diplomats of the Vatican. That's just maybe not as "satisfying" if your goal is to "bring down the Church" but it might be satisfying if your goal is more about punishing people who committed crimes.

Meh. Though I'm not Catholic or anywhere near, my goal, personally, wouldn't be to "bring down the church" in this case, but to simply prosecute criminals, one by one...period. Because that's what we do with people who are suspected of a crime. We bring them in to have a trial.