Thread: So if Catholics aren't paedophiles...

Vatican City is the only country in the world where it is legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old girl.

So it is a Catholic thing.

The fact that you're even remotely defending this is really very shocking. It's disgusting, and it needs to be addressed.

I'm not defending it at all.

What do you propose i do to change it?


I just had a quick look and apparently there are no children who are citizens in Vatican city. The law stayed the same when it seperated it from italy in 1929.

I also see that Spain has their AoC as 13. Is it better for 40 year olds to have sex with 13 year olds?

Originally Posted by Trionix

Vatican City is the only country in the world where it is legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old girl.

So it is a Catholic thing.

The fact that you're even remotely defending this is really very shocking. It's disgusting, and it needs to be addressed.

Come on that's absurd. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because a tiny country full of old men and zero children has an AoC of 12 and a small section of the priesthood molested some kids does not mean Cathoicism as a whole endorses sex with children. That's just prejudiced histrionics.

dont most kids in other countries pretty much have to fend for themselves/make a living work etc so why cant they decide to have sex if they are doing everything else an adult does..

Originally Posted by Gosu

Come on that's absurd. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because a tiny country full of old men and zero children has an AoC of 12 and a small section of the priesthood molested some kids does not mean Cathoicism as a whole endorses sex with children. That's just prejudiced histrionics.

But, because they do have an unsavoury reputation don't you think it would be diplomatic to change it. and it's not nice in spain. and yes Australians arguing to get it lowered to 12 are really horrible people too. but that doesnt make it fine in a small independent state run by catholics.

incidentally, would a kid have to be a resident for the law to apply, or just visiting? I'm not sure it's particularly relevant that it's only old men that live there (other than aiding the increase of sexual frustration)

EDIT: ftr, i'm not saying that catholics endorse unethical molestation, i am saying at best it's an outdated law and to update it would be a relevant and useful thing to do in the current climate surrounding the issue (same with spain etc.) especially considering it's an advanced western state, and a role model to a large proportion of countries in the world, and at worst...well, obviously.

I agree with everything Atom just said.

Gosu, why exactly are you trying to defend this?

Who really cares?

So what if the legal age of consent hasn't been changed since 1929? That doesn't mean that sex with 12-year-olds is something that's going to be accepted in the Vatican.

In Chester, there is still a law permitting the killing of Welsh people within the city walls as long as you do it after midnight and with a crossbow. Obviously that is a shockingly racist law and the people of Chester should be ashamed at having a law permitting the murder of ethnic minorities.

There's not supposed to be any sex whatsoever going on in the Vatican (like there's no murder meant to be going on in Chester) so there's been no need to change the law. There isn't even much of a legal system in Vatican City anyway. Nobody really appears to give a shit about the age of consent in the Vatican because it's simply not an issue. Any change to the law would be superficial and cosmetic only. Nobody - country or individual - is looking at the age of consent in Vatican City for their own moral guidelines so it wouldn't change anything. There aren't any priests who've come out and said 'well, the age of consent in The Vatican is 12 so I thought it was alright'. The only thing changing the age of consent would do is stop people on the internet kicking off about it.

Originally Posted by Brewtality

Who really cares?

So what if the legal age of consent hasn't been changed since 1929?

That's a pretty churlish attitude.

For an organisation which has repeatedly been accused of institutionalised paedophilia, which has been proven to cover up cases of child molestation, and which is in a position of immense responsibility and trust, to 'forget' to change this law is fucking disgusting.

Wake up.

The only thing changing the age of consent would do is stop people on the internet kicking off about it.

A dig as well? Someone's clearly enjoying life right now.

I don't think that the paedophilia issue has anything to do with the age of consent in the Vatican though. It would be nothing but a cosmetic change and would have absolutely no bearing on anything whatsoever.

And how was that a dig? It's just that nobody is arsed about it and it wouldn't change anything other than people complaining about it because it's something you can have a go at the Catholic Church over.

It's a PR issue and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Brewtality

I don't think that the paedophilia issue has anything to do with the age of consent in the Vatican though.

Of course it does, that's absurd.

For the same reason the church was right to apologise for the crusades, the age of consent should be raised. What kind of fucked up message does it give out?

Originally Posted by Atom' Package

But, because they do have an unsavoury reputation don't you think it would be diplomatic to change it. and it's not nice in spain. and yes Australians arguing to get it lowered to 12 are really horrible people too. but that doesnt make it fine in a small independent state run by catholics.

EDIT: ftr, i'm not saying that catholics endorse unethical molestation, i am saying at best it's an outdated law and to update it would be a relevant and useful thing to do in the current climate surrounding the issue (same with spain etc.) especially considering it's an advanced western state, and a role model to a large proportion of countries in the world, and at worst...well, obviously.

Absolutely they should change it, for all the reasons you mention. I'm just saying it's understandable that they haven't, that there's no sinister reason why they haven't, and that it in no way says anything about the acceptability of paedophilia in the Catholic Church. My position is basically the same as Brew's.

That the Catholic Church is slow to 'get with the times' and is also slow to change antiquated laws and doctrine? Well...yeah.

An official age of consent of 12 in Vatican City doesn't really do much to counter all of the anti-sex rhetoric the Catholic Church spouts. Like I said before, it's a pretty irrelevant part of the law. I feel very confident saying that the ace of consent in VC has never impacted any Catholic priest's decision to abuse a child. Which is why I don't think it's a big issue. By all means, change it if it makes the church look better, but leaving it isn't damaging anybody just like I'm not aware of any Welsh people being legally killed in my hometown. Did you know it's still illegal to celebrate Christmas in England?