Obama speaks of "special relationship"

...with the UK of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13533306

I think it's nice to see the two leaders meeting in such a relaxed manner (obviously for PR...but still, it sends a good message). The British press have been going crazy over Obama's visit - I know he's supposedly on good terms with the Queen as well.

Is there much news about it over in USA? What are your thoughts on the closeness between the two?

perhaps, most US news doesnt focus on obama unless its criticism.

IF he is doing things correctly its usually considered business as usual and nobody speaks of it.

Our news is mostly fox news which criticizes obama every step, and MSNBC which criticizes fox news at every step.

perhaps, most US news doesnt focus on obama unless its criticism.

IF he is doing things correctly its usually considered business as usual and nobody speaks of it.

Our news is mostly fox news which criticizes obama every step, and MSNBC which criticizes fox news at every step.

SoBaus

The U.S. and the U.K. have been allies for a long time. Nothing new here.

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

perhaps, most US news doesnt focus on obama unless its criticism.

IF he is doing things correctly its usually considered business as usual and nobody speaks of it.

Our news is mostly fox news which criticizes obama every step, and MSNBC which criticizes fox news at every step.

Ravensmash

i dont really know why and im not terribly proud but fox news is the leader in the US. And for the most part they only criticize obama. But all our other news networks are basically reactionary to fox news.... they wait for fox to spew Bs, then they call them on their BS and feel all proud that they are telling the truth, because they called obvious liars on obvious lying.

Then again i dont know why someone makes a hobby of following a liar around and calling his bluff. US politics are so stupid.

I guess if obama has a positive relationship with the UK it will probably be slandered as him being a socialist. Personally, i like it... strangely enough i like the idea of consulting with and having a positive relationship with the world... but thats why im a lunatic liberal. Real americans dont listen to statistics or facts... you go with you gut!

But all our other news networks are basically reactionary to fox news.... they wait for fox to spew Bs, then they call them on their BS and feel all proud that they are telling the truth, because they called obvious liars on obvious lying.

SoBaus

No. Only Fox News is biased. News networks without a conservative slant speak only verified truth.

perhaps, most US news doesnt focus on obama unless its criticism.

IF he is doing things correctly its usually considered business as usual and nobody speaks of it.

Our news is mostly fox news which criticizes obama every step, and MSNBC which criticizes fox news at every step.

SoBaus

Didn't he just recently say we didn't have a special relationship. I remember reading it here...SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Didn't he just recently say we didn't have a special relationship. I remember reading it here...Overlord93

Theres no news at all about it really besides obamas vehicle getting stuck when he was in Ireland.

He takes these trips so often that they really are not a big deal for most united states citizens

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

But all our other news networks are basically reactionary to fox news.... they wait for fox to spew Bs, then they call them on their BS and feel all proud that they are telling the truth, because they called obvious liars on obvious lying.

Palantas

No. Only Fox News is biased. News networks without a conservative slant speak only verified truth.

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

perhaps, most US news doesnt focus on obama unless its criticism.

IF he is doing things correctly its usually considered business as usual and nobody speaks of it.

Our news is mostly fox news which criticizes obama every step, and MSNBC which criticizes fox news at every step.

Ragnarok1051

Um no.. We have a siginficiantly large part of the population who won't even accept he is the president because he supposedly wasn't born here.. Or that he is a communist.. Hell my dad tells stories about guys he works within the auto industry in which they constantly make thinly veiled jokes in killing Obama, or flat out saying that some one needs to assassinate him.

really we need an opposing side of view here folks not all of us agree with the liberal agenda.kayoticdreamz

No you don't. Think the way you're told.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

But all our other news networks are basically reactionary to fox news.... they wait for fox to spew Bs, then they call them on their BS and feel all proud that they are telling the truth, because they called obvious liars on obvious lying.

kayoticdreamz

No. Only Fox News is biased. News networks without a conservative slant speak only verified truth.

A opposing side of crap? No way. It isn't the fact that Fox is a conservative news station. Its because they are blantent in doing so, and they have awful journalism qualities.. It has gotten SO bad for Fox in fact, that Jon Stewart has become a threat to them that they have to consistently try to make a rebuttal everything he says about Fox news.. Its not about the other sites being liberal, its about the fact that Fox quite often can not qualify as real journalism because of how blatant they really are.... Most politicians are liberal? Says who? And define liberal... Yes because liberal means state controlled media.. Your logic is flawless.

...with the UK of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13533306

I think it's nice to see the two leaders meeting in such a relaxed manner (obviously for PR...but still, it sends a good message). The British press have been going crazy over Obama's visit - I know he's supposedly on good terms with the Queen as well.

Is there much news about it over in USA? What are your thoughts on the closeness between the two?

Ravensmash

He's simply repairing the international relations damage caused by George W. Bush over the previous 8 years.

The President that follows Obama is going to have such an EASY job, since he's fixing all the broken things right now.

Hopefully whoever it is won't screw it up again.

dont like our admin, for the most part dont like their Parliament, and the only saving grace the UK has is the queen and only because she can drink anyone else at the party under the table.

Obama always gets treated like a rockstar when he goes to Europe. What else is new?

What was he going to say? The UK makes my balls ache? Its political pleasantries. Big_Bad_Sad

Lol exactly....Politicans love every country they go to.

Yes the U.S. and Britain have a special relationship we used to be their colony and now they are our biggest ally.

But I do find it quite odd that there hasn't been much press coverage of British people complaining (maybe they are complaining maybe they aren't I don't know) about the taxpayer dollars being spent for security of Obama's visit, like the tons and tons of stories about British people complaining about taxpayer dollars being spent for the Pope's visit last fall.

On a lighter note I did find it funny that when Obama visited Westminster Abbey he was signing the Guestbook and then asked for the date and when told the date wrote the date, but instead of putting 2011 put 2008. Lol. I guess being president you've got a lot of stuff and your mind and can get forgetful of minor things due to all the stress.

But I do find it quite odd that there hasn't been much press coverage of British people complaining (maybe they are complaining maybe they aren't I don't know) about the taxpayer dollars being spent for security of Obama's visit, like the tons and tons of stories about British people complaining about taxpayer dollars being spent for the Pope's visit last fall.whipassmt

[QUOTE="SoBaus"]

perhaps, most US news doesnt focus on obama unless its criticism.

IF he is doing things correctly its usually considered business as usual and nobody speaks of it.

Our news is mostly fox news which criticizes obama every step, and MSNBC which criticizes fox news at every step.

Ravensmash

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]But I do find it quite odd that there hasn't been much press coverage of British people complaining (maybe they are complaining maybe they aren't I don't know) about the taxpayer dollars being spent for security of Obama's visit, like the tons and tons of stories about British people complaining about taxpayer dollars being spent for the Pope's visit last fall.Danm_999

Though yes the fact that decades old allegations surfaced about priests sexually abusing children in that area that year may explain some of it. Though it's rather dumb to blame that on Pope Benedict XVI, considering the fact that in 1988, while still a Cardinal he wrote a letter to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts asking them to change the Penal sections of Canon Law to make punishing priests who sexually abuse minors both easier and swifter:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A newly disclosed letter reveals that as early as 1988, the future Pope Benedict XVI pressed for swifter and more streamlined procedures to punish priests guilty of "grave and scandalous conduct."

Cardinal Ratzinger before he was elected pope. (CNS file/Catholic Press Photo)

The letter, written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he was head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, expressed concern that the normal process for dealing with such priests -- which typically involved a request for dispensation from priestly obligations -- took too long and was seen more as a favor than a punishment.

Eventually, with Cardinal Ratzinger's involvement, the penal procedures were simplified and sanctions were strengthened. But in 1988, the cardinal's suggestion of a "more rapid and simplified penal process" was rebuffed by the Vatican's canon law experts.

The letter was cited in a lengthy article published Dec. 1 by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. The article highlighted what it described as a "crucial role" and "decisive action" by Cardinal Ratzinger in the 20-year process of strengthening sanctions against errant priests.

Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, dated Feb. 19, 1988, was addressed to the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, who at that time was Venezuelan Cardinal Jose Rosalio Castillo Lara.

Although Since this was made known in December and the Pope's visit was in September, they didn't know that at the time.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]

perhaps, most US news doesnt focus on obama unless its criticism.

IF he is doing things correctly its usually considered business as usual and nobody speaks of it.

Our news is mostly fox news which criticizes obama every step, and MSNBC which criticizes fox news at every step.

Commander-Gree

I wouldn't say that Fox is totally biased to the right. Sean Colmes is liberal. Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly are all conservative, though O'Reilly is a bit more fair than the other two. But I think Fox does have relatively neutral shows like those down by Greta Van Susteren.

My guess was that the media exaggerated the protests. whipassmt

I'm not so sure this was a media made hype. Britain has been crippled by the austerity measures, to the point where people where even unhappy about the cost of the Royal wedding.

So when suddenly you have the head of a religion, a religion which the small minority of Britons practice, which has been involved in pedophilia scandals recently, visiting on the taxpayer's dime it's not hard to see why they'd be upset.

Actually the protests died down quite a bit after the visit.whipassmt

Of course they did. They were protesting the visit...

Though yes the fact that decades old allegations surfaced about priests sexually abusing children in that area that year may explain some of it. Though it's rather dumb to blame that on Pope Benedict XVI, considering the fact that in 1988, while still a Cardinal he wrote a letter to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts asking them to change the Penal sections of Canon Law to make punishing priests who sexually abuse minors both easier and swifter:whipassmt

Yeah, punish them internally. That's part of the problem, it looks like the Vatican thought it was a law onto itself, even outside Italy.

As it turns out, Ratzinger seems to have kept a tight lid on rogue priests from authorities to avoid a scandal. It's lovely that he pushed for the Vatican to punish pedophiles internally, but it's not going to endear the Pope to a largely non-Catholic British public who think that the matter should be handled by states and governments.

[QUOTE="Commander-Gree"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] It's a shame that the only US news channel Sky offer us here is Fox. I've watched it before (I study Journalism so love news), along with CBS evening news (shown live on Sky News for some reason early in the morning) and the difference in quality of reporting is massive. I don't know how that's viewed in the US but Fox just seems to be people jumping on Democrats or attacking liberals (from what I've seen :P) There was a panel and instead of being balanced and a discussion (like good news should be - to give an audience a fair viewpoint) it was just everyone on the same side followed by lots of generalisations :P I do like Shephard Smith though.whipassmt

I wouldn't say that Fox is totally biased to the right. Sean Colmes is liberal. Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly are all conservative, though O'Reilly is a bit more fair than the other two. But I think Fox does have relatively neutral shows like those down by Greta Van Susteren.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

My guess was that the media exaggerated the protests. Danm_999

I'm not so sure this was a media made hype. Britain has been crippled by the austerity measures, to the point where people where even unhappy about the cost of the Royal wedding.

So when suddenly you have the head of a religion, a religion which the small minority of Britons practice, which has been involved in pedophilia scandals recently, it's not hard to see why they'd be upset.

Actually the protests died down quite a bit after the visit.whipassmt

Of course they did. They were protesting the visit...

Though yes the fact that decades old allegations surfaced about priests sexually abusing children in that area that year may explain some of it. Though it's rather dumb to blame that on Pope Benedict XVI, considering the fact that in 1988, while still a Cardinal he wrote a letter to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts asking them to change the Penal sections of Canon Law to make punishing priests who sexually abuse minors both easier and swifter:whipassmt

Yeah, punish them internally. That's part of the problem, it looks like the Vatican thought it was a law onto itself, even outside Italy.

As it turns out, Ratzinger seems to have kept a tight lid on rogue priests from authorities to avoid a scandal. It's lovely that he pushed for the Vatican to punish pedophiles internally, but it's not going to endear the Pope to a largely non-Catholic British public who think that the matter should be handled by states and governments.

Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna the Promoter of Justice (similar to a head prosecutor) for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith stated that :

"In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. This is an onerous duty because the bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a father denouncing his own son. Nonetheless, our guidance in these cases is to respect the law."

Also, Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, The Director of the Holy See Press Office has stated:

"One point that remains untouched, though it has often been the subject of discussion in recent times, concerns collaboration with the civil authorities. It must be borne in mind that the Norms being published today are part of the penal code of canon law, which is complete in itself and entirely distinct from the law of States.

On this subject, however, it is important to take note of the "Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations", as published on the Holy See website. In that Guide, the phrase "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed" is contained in the section dedicated to "Preliminary Procedures". This means that in the practice suggested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it is necessary to comply with the requirements of law in the various countries, and to do so in good time, not during or subsequent to the canonical trial"

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has stated:

"civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed".

I think the media may be downplaying protests against the Obama visit.whipassmt

Evidence?

2. You're second statement that Ratzinger tried to prevent the governments from punishing the ephebophiles (most were not "pedophiles" since they mostly dealt with post-pubescent kids) is also wrong.whipassmt

My apologies. How noble it was to wait until the children were post puberty.

But as for Ratzinger, there's no definite evidence of a coverup, but some compelling heresay. He wanted to not defrock Stephen Kiesle when it appeared he was involved in a scandal for example, for "the good of the universal Church".

Now, I think he's got a totally valid point, the Catholic Church does plenty of good around the world, and shouldn't be tarnished by a few bad eggs. But at the same time, I can see why Britain wouldn't be thrilled about having this guy visit; in a certain light he does look like an accessory after the fact.

Again, my point isn't to answer these claims definitevely, that's something you or I cannot do, I'm trying to point out while people in Britian would be more receptive to Obama visiting than the Pope.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]But I do find it quite odd that there hasn't been much press coverage of British people complaining (maybe they are complaining maybe they aren't I don't know) about the taxpayer dollars being spent for security of Obama's visit, like the tons and tons of stories about British people complaining about taxpayer dollars being spent for the Pope's visit last fall.whipassmt

Though yes the fact that decades old allegations surfaced about priests sexually abusing children in that area that year may explain some of it. Though it's rather dumb to blame that on Pope Benedict XVI, considering the fact that in 1988, while still a Cardinal he wrote a letter to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts asking them to change the Penal sections of Canon Law to make punishing priests who sexually abuse minors both easier and swifter:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A newly disclosed letter reveals that as early as 1988, the future Pope Benedict XVI pressed for swifter and more streamlined procedures to punish priests guilty of "grave and scandalous conduct."

Cardinal Ratzinger before he was elected pope. (CNS file/Catholic Press Photo)

The letter, written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he was head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, expressed concern that the normal process for dealing with such priests -- which typically involved a request for dispensation from priestly obligations -- took too long and was seen more as a favor than a punishment.

Eventually, with Cardinal Ratzinger's involvement, the penal procedures were simplified and sanctions were strengthened. But in 1988, the cardinal's suggestion of a "more rapid and simplified penal process" was rebuffed by the Vatican's canon law experts.

The letter was cited in a lengthy article published Dec. 1 by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. The article highlighted what it described as a "crucial role" and "decisive action" by Cardinal Ratzinger in the 20-year process of strengthening sanctions against errant priests.

Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, dated Feb. 19, 1988, was addressed to the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, who at that time was Venezuelan Cardinal Jose Rosalio Castillo Lara.

Although Since this was made known in December and the Pope's visit was in September, they didn't know that at the time.

I, as british tax payer, don't have a problem funding state visits such as Obama's.

The Queen is the head of the Church in our country, not the Pope. I took issue with the Pope's visit because he refused to acknowledge and answered for the alleged crimes within his institution. Britain has very little diplomatic ties with the Vatican as a state, the States on the other hand are our most powerful ally.

Obama has snubbed the British at every turn. Obama's words at this point sound so hollow.

[QUOTE="Commander-Gree"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Fox news is basically the Republican channel. Just about every story they report has some sort of spin in order to make Republicans look good or to make Democrats look bad. Just about every other major news agency in the US is left leaning though, so I guess Fox sort of balances it out. But they are not fair and balanced like they claim to be. The reason Sky shows Fox is because Rupert Murdoch (a conservative) owns both channels. whipassmt

I wouldn't say that Fox is totally biased to the right. Sean Colmes is liberal. Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly are all conservative, though O'Reilly is a bit more fair than the other two. But I think Fox does have relatively neutral shows like those down by Greta Van Susteren.

Obama has snubbed the British at every turn. Obama's words at this point sound so hollow.

IAMTHEJOKER88

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Probably because just before the Pope's visit to the UK last year, a whole new host of cases of sexual abuse of children by Priests and Clerics in England and Wales had only recently sprung up.IAMTHEJOKER88

Though yes the fact that decades old allegations surfaced about priests sexually abusing children in that area that year may explain some of it. Though it's rather dumb to blame that on Pope Benedict XVI, considering the fact that in 1988, while still a Cardinal he wrote a letter to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts asking them to change the Penal sections of Canon Law to make punishing priests who sexually abuse minors both easier and swifter:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A newly disclosed letter reveals that as early as 1988, the future Pope Benedict XVI pressed for swifter and more streamlined procedures to punish priests guilty of "grave and scandalous conduct."

Cardinal Ratzinger before he was elected pope. (CNS file/Catholic Press Photo)

The letter, written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he was head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, expressed concern that the normal process for dealing with such priests -- which typically involved a request for dispensation from priestly obligations -- took too long and was seen more as a favor than a punishment.

Eventually, with Cardinal Ratzinger's involvement, the penal procedures were simplified and sanctions were strengthened. But in 1988, the cardinal's suggestion of a "more rapid and simplified penal process" was rebuffed by the Vatican's canon law experts.

The letter was cited in a lengthy article published Dec. 1 by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. The article highlighted what it described as a "crucial role" and "decisive action" by Cardinal Ratzinger in the 20-year process of strengthening sanctions against errant priests.

Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, dated Feb. 19, 1988, was addressed to the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, who at that time was Venezuelan Cardinal Jose Rosalio Castillo Lara.

Although Since this was made known in December and the Pope's visit was in September, they didn't know that at the time.

I, as british tax payer, don't have a problem funding state visits such as Obama's.

The Queen is the head of the Church in our country, not the Pope. I took issue with the Pope's visit because he refused to acknowledge and answered for the alleged crimes within his institution. Britain has very little diplomatic ties with the Vatican as a state, the States on the other hand are our most powerful ally.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

I think the media may be downplaying protests against the Obama visit.Danm_999

Evidence?

2. You're second statement that Ratzinger tried to prevent the governments from punishing the ephebophiles (most were not "pedophiles" since they mostly dealt with post-pubescent kids) is also wrong.whipassmt

But as for Ratzinger, there's no definite evidence of a coverup, but some compelling heresay. He wanted to not defrock Stephen Kiesle when it appeared he was involved in a scandal for example, for "the good of the universal Church".

Now, I think he's got a totally valid point, the Catholic Church does plenty of good around the world, and shouldn't be tarnished by a few bad eggs. But at the same time, I can see why Britain wouldn't be thrilled about having this guy visit; in a certain light he does look like an accessory after the fact.

Again, my point isn't to answer these claims definitevely, that's something you or I cannot do, I'm trying to point out while people in Britian would be more receptive to Obama visiting than the Pope.

But it must be mentioned that this had nothing to do with "defrocking" (by the way the correct term is "laicizing" or "degrading" but the media often incorrectly call it "defrocking"- which actually just means stripping someone of the right to wear clerical garb). Laicization is a punishment whereby a cleric loses his juridical (legal) status as a cleric.

In reality Kiesle had molested some boys (tying them up in the rectory no less) and in 1978 plead guilty in California court to a misdemeanor (how this wasn't a penalty I don't know, but it was the 70s and California so go figure) and was given 3 years probation (none in prison).

In 1981 Kiesle wrote to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (at this point in time Ratzinger was still in Germany, Franjo Card. Seper was in charge of the CDF)asking for a dispensation from the priesthood (which means that while you're report claimed that Ratzinger resisted punishing Kiesle, in reality punishing Kiesle was out of Ratzinger's jurisdiction and Kiesle was asking to quit the priesthood)

In any sense Kiesle and his Bishop (who had taken measures to make sure Kiesle was not around minors unsupervised, measures which apparently worked considering he did not offend again until after he had left the priesthood) wrote to the CDF years later and in 1985 received the letter from Ratzinger that your source mentions. However this letter was actually a form letter (i.e. the letter was the same letter that is sent out in all cases, it's just the names and stuff that are specific) not a letter specifically about the case. In 1987 Ratzinger approved the Kiesle's dispensation for the priesthood.

If anyone, besides Kiesle himself is at fault, it is not Ratzinger and the ecclesial authorities, it is the California legal and judicial authorities who didn't even put him in jail for his offenses (three years probation, what kind of punishment is that).

For more information about this see here.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Didn't he just recently say we didn't have a special relationship. I remember reading it here...Overlord93

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

My guess was that the media exaggerated the protests. whipassmt

I'm not so sure this was a media made hype. Britain has been crippled by the austerity measures, to the point where people where even unhappy about the cost of the Royal wedding.

So when suddenly you have the head of a religion, a religion which the small minority of Britons practice, which has been involved in pedophilia scandals recently, it's not hard to see why they'd be upset.

Actually the protests died down quite a bit after the visit.whipassmt

Of course they did. They were protesting the visit...

Though yes the fact that decades old allegations surfaced about priests sexually abusing children in that area that year may explain some of it. Though it's rather dumb to blame that on Pope Benedict XVI, considering the fact that in 1988, while still a Cardinal he wrote a letter to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts asking them to change the Penal sections of Canon Law to make punishing priests who sexually abuse minors both easier and swifter:whipassmt

Yeah, punish them internally. That's part of the problem, it looks like the Vatican thought it was a law onto itself, even outside Italy.

As it turns out, Ratzinger seems to have kept a tight lid on rogue priests from authorities to avoid a scandal. It's lovely that he pushed for the Vatican to punish pedophiles internally, but it's not going to endear the Pope to a largely non-Catholic British public who think that the matter should be handled by states and governments.

Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna the Promoter of Justice (similar to a head prosecutor) for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith stated that :

"In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. This is an onerous duty because the bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a father denouncing his own son. Nonetheless, our guidance in these cases is to respect the law."

Also, Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, The Director of the Holy See Press Office has stated:

"One point that remains untouched, though it has often been the subject of discussion in recent times, concerns collaboration with the civil authorities. It must be borne in mind that the Norms being published today are part of the penal code of canon law, which is complete in itself and entirely distinct from the law of States.

On this subject, however, it is important to take note of the "Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations", as published on the Holy See website. In that Guide, the phrase "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed" is contained in the section dedicated to "Preliminary Procedures". This means that in the practice suggested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it is necessary to comply with the requirements of law in the various countries, and to do so in good time, not during or subsequent to the canonical trial"

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has stated:

"civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed".

As we saw with the BP oil spill, the oil industry has largely tried to self-regulate. And also the abortion industry has a history of keeping things hidden from the government. Heck in my state abortion providers are required by law to report the age and gestational period of their customers who have abortions, but they have failed to report the required information 661 times in 2009 alone (which is actually a 56% decrease from 2008 due mostly to increased efforts on the part of the Department of Public Health to enforce the law). And there was also that incident in Philadelphia were abortionist Kermit Gosnell was arrestedfor 8 counts of murder (i believe it was seven babies who were killed after the survivedhis failed attempt to abort them and one woman who died from neglect)and the Grand Jury Indictment noted that he had applied for membership in the National Abortion Federation which termed him down after examining his clinic but did not report anything to the proper health officials (who later discovered his clinic was rife with safety and sanitary violations).

If anything the Church has a more legitimate claim to be able to "self-regulate" than either the oil industry or the abortion industry due to the ideas of freedom of religion and separation of Church and state, not to mention that the Holy See is a sovereign nation, and BP and Planned Parenthood are not.However as I've shown above the Church has accepted that these incidents should be reported to the proper civil authorities. Whereas the oil and abortion industries still seem to think they are above the law.

[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Didn't he just recently say we didn't have a special relationship. I remember reading it here...LJS9502_basic

It's really quite stupid to suggest that France has been a better ally to us than Britain.

The U.S. and the U.K. have been allies for a long time. Nothing new here.

TheHighWind

I think that UK not inviting Obama for the Royal Wedding exactly shows in what regard UK holds USA.

[QUOTE="TheHighWind"]

The U.S. and the U.K. have been allies for a long time. Nothing new here.

shinian

I think that UK not inviting Obama for the Royal Wedding exactly shows in what regard UK holds USA.

[QUOTE="shinian"]

[QUOTE="TheHighWind"]

The U.S. and the U.K. have been allies for a long time. Nothing new here.

whipassmt

I think that UK not inviting Obama for the Royal Wedding exactly shows in what regard UK holds USA.

[QUOTE="TheHighWind"]

The U.S. and the U.K. have been allies for a long time. Nothing new here.

shinian

I think that UK not inviting Obama for the Royal Wedding exactly shows in what regard UK holds USA.

The U.K. presented the President of the United States a gift that was a desk hand crafted out of wood that was part of an historic anti-slave ship.

Obama presented the Prime Minister with a collection of DVD's (that were not in a format that could even be played in England). His follow up gift to the Queen was an I-pod filled with speeches he had given.

Not sure who holds who in what regard.

[QUOTE="shinian"]

[QUOTE="TheHighWind"]

The U.S. and the U.K. have been allies for a long time. Nothing new here.

whipassmt

I think that UK not inviting Obama for the Royal Wedding exactly shows in what regard UK holds USA.

Well that explains the long list of celebrities such as Atkinson or Paddy Campbell.

Oh. Wait.

[QUOTE="shinian"]

[QUOTE="TheHighWind"]

The U.S. and the U.K. have been allies for a long time. Nothing new here.

YellowOneKinobi

I think that UK not inviting Obama for the Royal Wedding exactly shows in what regard UK holds USA.

The U.K. presented the President of the United States a gift that was a desk hand crafted out of wood that was part of an historic anti-slave ship.

Obama presented the Prime Minister with a collection of DVD's (that were not in a format that could even be played in England). His follow up gift to the Queen was an I-pod filled with speeches he had given.

Not sure who holds who in what regard.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="shinian"]

I think that UK not inviting Obama for the Royal Wedding exactly shows in what regard UK holds USA.

LJS9502_basic

The U.K. presented the President of the United States a gift that was a desk hand crafted out of wood that was part of an historic anti-slave ship.

Obama presented the Prime Minister with a collection of DVD's (that were not in a format that could even be played in England). His follow up gift to the Queen was an I-pod filled with speeches he had given.

Not sure who holds who in what regard.