Talk:LGBTQ rights in Vatican City

Anti-Catholic Article, with very little sources.

This article contains very little references, while some of the information may not be accurate at all such as: "It is not known what the age of consent is in the city, but it is probably 18." (also Vatican City is NOT a city but a SOVEREIGN STATE!)

Also, the article seems to be used as a "stab" at the Church. Information included in the article have no relation to Vatican City, the nation or government but rather the rules or procedures of the Catholic Church. An example: "In 2005 The Vatican government enacted a new policy that stipulated that gay or bisexual men would no longer be eligible to enter the Seminary and the Holy Orders." Not only is there no source, but also such matter is within the Church not Vatican City government.

The article should either be cleaned up, and neutralized, or completely removed. Jyoz 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, mate. I usually go by the name Chargee, but on this day I've simply not been signed in. I have edited the article to make it more neutral, and I will add a neutrality notice to it because I agree that the previous edition was far more biased against Catholicism.

I included some of the official law of the Catholic Church - of which the Vatican is head of. And I also read the article cited in transgender and added some more info from that article. It should provide a slightly clearer understanding of what the Church actually teaches.

Sincerely,

Chargee

97.121.80.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC).

Further edited to produce what I believe is a relatively neutral article. Chargee (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs Updating

The Pope has changed his stance on condoms, any word on whether Vatican City has? Since they get their orders from him, do they plan to change laws, add new ones for this, or is it just a moral thing with no legislation in the first place? Jenova20 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Pope did not change anything. [1]. It does not have any effect on the laws of Vatican City. --Usquam (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No "anti-catholicism" - all information verified

The Vatican is a city AND a state. Thank Mussolini for that. This article reports just factual information. If you see it as a "stab" to the Catholic Church, then you are the only anti-Catholic here. As for the "Instruction etc." you can find all the sources of the case in the relative Wikipedia article. Also, the Vatican government IS the Church. Again, thank Mussolini for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.1.124.119 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I think what the previous poster meant with regard to the Church's policy on gay seminarians etc. is that it is not in any way specific to the Vatican and therefore belongs in the article on Catholic attitudes to homosexuality, not in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.18.21 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can't claim "all information verified" when that "probably" is still in there. Is it 18 or isn't it? We need precision and we need citations.

Notable?

Is this really a notable subject for an article? The "city" has a population of less than 1000, and isn't really a country at all. Is there anything in here that couldn't be dealt with elsewhere? Cool3 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were under another country's laws (and didn't have enough autonomy to justify its own article), it could be covered by that country's LGBT rights article. However, as a sovereign city-state, it has its own laws and answers to no one higher than the pope... thus fitting into the LGBT rights in x series of articles as a sovereign entity. The other European microstates also have their own articles. Wikignome0529 (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Article

What about that? http://www.theonion.com/articles/vatican-reverses-stance-on-gay-marriage-after-meet,20912/

Fabzzz (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Onion. --Usquam (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Criminal Law in Vatican City

There was made a change with a horrible failure. Reuters "Vatican ends automatic adoption of Italian law" speek about others then civil law code and criminal law code.

• In 1929, in the creation of Vatican City, it takes the Codice Penale (CP) from Italy from 1889 in the stable version of 1929-06-08 as it ones criminal law (S: Art. 4 [old version] Art. 3 Legge sulle fonti del diritto, N.II., 7. Juni 1929)
• In 1969 it changes the CP-version to the point of 1924-12-31 (S: Art. 39 Legge che modifica la legislazione penale e la legislazione processuale penale, N.L, 21. Juni 1969, in wich Art. 4 of Legge sulle fonti del diritto 1929 is changed.) (primaly because death penalty wich was reintroduced 1926 in Italy)
• In 1930 Italy made a new criminal law, wich has no effect to Vatican. (there the age of consent goes from 12 to 14)
• 2008: in law Nr. LXXI Legge sulle fonti del diritto / Act on Sources of Law/ "Gesetz über Rechtsquellen" from 2008-10-01, in force with 2009-01-01 (German Version, Italian), written:
  • a) in Art 3: italian law is used, if there is no law from vatican, excluding if it is aginst the law of god
  • b) in Art 4: italian civil law is used from 1942-03-16 with the changes over the time until 2009-01-01 excluding some points
  • Art 5: civil procedure, Art. 6 judge in civil law
  • c) in Art 7 (criminal law): until a new order comes and if it not against the excludings from Art 3 (law of god) it is used the criminal law from italy, how is set in force with law Nr. II, Art. 3, from 1929-06-07, and the vaticanic changes until now. (not the italian changes!)
  • this means: italian criminal law in the version of 1924 (eventually with some mininal vaticanic overriding changes, like i.e. financial laws), for the age of consent, this made 12 like italy 1924/1929.

Aiding source from 2012 about financal laws of HS/VCS, [2] PDF-P. 54, Nr. 206: As was noted earlier, by virtue of Art. 7 of Act No. LXXI on the sources of law of 1 October 2008 (see Annex XII) the Italian Criminal Code, as it stood at the time of the Lateran Treaty in 1929, applies within the HS/VCS unless modified by a subsequent enactment. It was confirmed in the course of the November MONEYVAL on-site visit that changes to the Italian Criminal Code are not automatically adopted. Developments in Italian law, and more widely, are monitored and modernising legislation is enacted in the HS/VCS on an ad hoc basis. (The change 1929/1924 from 1969, it seams they have no knowledge of this) --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 06:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Korr --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 21:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The above is false. The Vatican automatically adopted Italian laws as they were introduced, up until October 2008. [Reuters |http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/31/us-italy-vatican-idUSTRE4BU3BD20081231] [BBC |http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7807501.stm] 208.65.73.101 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Change status to de facto illegal.

CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

> They [homosexual persons] can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

LGBT cannot in all honesty be said to be legal. If someone has gay sex they are taken into custody. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think they should change it to either no status or de facto illegal Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It is de facto illegal in the Vatican to have gay sex. They will arrest you if you have gay sex.

https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/international-news-news/gay-drug-orgy-raided-vatican-police/159794 Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It is de facto illegal to have homosexual conduct in the Vatican State.

[Official] They [homosexual persons] can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good. - CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

It is de facto illegal to have gay sex within the Vatican state. People get arrested for such homosexual conduct. https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/international-news-news/gay-drug-orgy-raided-vatican-police/159794

(Also this article from another wiki page) The 2010 Vatican employee sex scandal was an incident in March 2010 in which two part-time employees of the Holy See, a consultant who also served as a lay attendant of the pope[1] and another who was a professional member of the Saint Peter's Choir,[2] were reported in the press to be part of a homosexual male prostitution ring. The Catholic Church considers prostitution and homosexual acts to be gravely sinful offenses[3] and the Vatican severed its connections with both men, one of whom had been arrested. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please give one concrete statement about what change you are suggesting for the article. Your comments above make a lot of statements, but I can't discern what actual change you want in the article. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Change the status to de facto illegal since they arrest people who do engage in homosexual conduct. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The only account of an arrest you give is an incident where police "reportedly found drugs and a group of men engaged in an orgy". You cannot infer from that that two consenting adults who would simply have sex in private would be arrested. I suppose that drug use is illegal, and I can imagine that group sex (an "orgy") is as well, but I don't know. However, the article says nothing about that. To have the occasion to have sex in private within the Vatican City State, you probably have to somehow be employed by the Catholic Church, and then they will pretty certainly sack you and kick you out, but I don't see any reason to assume they would arrest you in violation of their own stated legislation. Imagine it: They would have to ask Italy to execute any prison term, because they have no prison of their own! That's just not credible. Sigur (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Solidarityandfreedom: it seems to me that you are suggesting a change based on your own analysis of arrest reports. On Wikipedia we call that original research and we do not base article content on that type of analysis. If you want the article to state that this is "de facto illegal" then you will need to produce one or more reliable sources specifically stating that. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Show me where it says homosexual or non-married sex is legal… Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

For example here. By the way, I'm wondering whether we should change "1929" to "1889" in the summary table. Granted, the state only exists since 1929, but gay sex has been legal there much longer. Sigur (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Article messed up with (partly unrelated) affirmations on the Roman-Catholic Church (rather than the Vatican City)

Recent changes have made this article seriously inadequate: It is nonsensical to mention “limited ceremonial rights” as “recognition of relationships”. This is about religious ceremonies without any legal effect (and in this case very limited indeed). If we wanted to do this, we would have to change to “yes” the recognition of relationships for all territories where some church grants blessings (again: with no legal effect) and is legally allowed to do so. Suddenly, a lot of countries would seem to “recognise” relationships although they patently don’t. Same for LGBT parenting and transgender rights: The fact that the Roman-Catholic Church is willing to baptise transgender people and children from rainbow families doesn’t say anything about the gender status either the Church or the Vatican City State would assign to those people or whom they consider the legal parents of rainbow family children to be. So, those yes marks are complete nonsensical. And the affirmation in a recent edit that Italy is responsible for legal gender change, adoption and citizenship is completely mistaken as well. It may not be the “normal” thing to happen, but if a woman delivered in an emergency in some building in Vatican City, the birth would be registered there (they have a law for this [see Art. 4(g) of Legge sulle fonti del diritto and Art. 17(3)(a) Legge sul Governo dello Stato della Città del Vaticano]) and not in Italy. And there is no indication they would allow a gender change in that register after a transition. There is reason to believe that they will allow you to walk around presenting in your preferred gender after a transition, but that’s it, it doesn’t imply legal recognition of your gender. Adoption could theoretically be granted by decree of the Pope (see Art. 4(d) of Legge sulle fonti del diritto). And finally, Vatican citizenship can be held by children. This is not part of the article, but it shows on what erroneous assumptions the edit was made. I have at some point tried to stop this mess, but that was reversed and nobody else seems to care. And I’m in no mood for an edit war. But the article is really becoming useless at this point, due to its many inaccuracies. Vollis (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this article seems to be conflating the opinions and discussions of the Catholic Church with the specific laws in place in Vatican City, which means it’s getting into conjecture about what is and isn’t legal without actually being accurate. GraziePrego (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)