Vatican opposes UN promotion of unnatural “marriage”

The UN is trying to create a new category of human rights. We have been across this ground before (HERE and HERE).

That right, pushed by the UN, is freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender. Ostensibly, this “right” is intended to protect homosexual persons from discriminatory violence. But the Holy See knows that the hidden agenda is to create a human “right” based on sexual orientation so that the UN is empowered to insist that member states allow unnatural civil “marriage” and adoption.

That’s it in brief.

Let liberals be made aware that this is on the website of the Holy See and it is from the Holy Father’s appointed Observer to the UN.  This is the position of Pope Benedict communicated through his surrogates.

Therefore, pay some attention to an address given by Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva.

Here is a salient section of Archbishop Tomasi’s address. It is written in UN-ese, but you can wade through it. Anyway, I’ve already told you what’s really going on.

[...]

6. In paragraph #68 of her Report, the High Commissioner rightly asserts that “the Human Rights Committee has held that States are not required, under international law, to allow same-sex couples to marry.” She immediately proposes, however, that States have an obligation to “ensure that unmarried same-sex couples are treated in the same way and entitled to the same benefits as unmarried opposite – sex couples.” In this regard, the Holy See expresses grave concern that, under the guise of “protecting” people from discrimination and violence on the basis of perceived sexual differences, this Council may be running the risk of demeaning the sacred and time-honoured legal institution of marriage between man and woman, between husband and wife, which enjoyed special protection from time immemorial within legal, cultural, and religious traditions and within the modern human rights instruments, starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and extending to numerous other covenants, treaties, and laws. Marriage contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interpedently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other. The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children; namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and a father; it is the foundation of the natural family, the basic cell of society. States confer legal recognition on the marital relationship between husband and wife because it makes a unique and essential contribution to the public good. If marriage were to be re-defined in a way that makes other relationships equivalent to it, as has occurred in some countries and as the High Commissioner seems to be encouraging in her Report, the institution of marriage, and consequently the natural family itself, will be both devalued and weakened.

[...]

Listen to Archbishop Tomasi’s comments on the discussion given to Vatican Radio HERE.

Cut off the UN’s money NOW!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, TEOTWAWKI, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Vatican opposes UN promotion of unnatural “marriage”

  1. ContraMundum says:

    For too long, leaders within the Church have tried to set up the United Nations as some sort of super-nation with authority surpassing that of the individual nations. This was exceedingly foolish, and see what results of it.

    Before someone has a conniption fit, I am not saying that there exists no authority greater than that of an individual nation. I am saying that there exists no authority of the same kind greater than that of an individual nation. The authority of the Church, for example, is of a different kind, as are the authority of the natural law and of the laws of physics.

  2. wmeyer says:

    The UN, as it exists today, is an utter waste. Corruption is rife, and its agenda is as bad as anything which we see in the secular world. Given the state of the world today, I see no promise in a governmental entity above the nation level. If we surrender our sovereignty to the UN, then I predict that in a very few years, we will be required by that same UN to join the caliphate, as Islam is already the largest single religion. That alone is sufficient cause not to do so.

  3. Darren says:

    As if I needed another reason to despire the UN.

  4. Darren says:

    er… despiSe

  5. NoraLee9 says:

    And they hog the parking in midtown Manhattan too! See them all home.

  6. ContraMundum says:

    I’m all for putting the UN on a small island where ambassadors and other officials would have no opportunity to do anything but the diplomacy they’re supposed to be doing. No more spying, no more living it up in NYC.

    St. Helena, where Napoleon was exiled, might be the most poetic. Somewhere in the Falklands would make it cold and miserable for them. Henderson Island in the Pacific is uninhabited and far from everything.

    How about Greenland? They could spend their free time complaining about global warming!

  7. wmeyer says:

    How about Kwajalein Atoll? Then, if they’re right about the impending rise of the oceans…..

  8. NoTambourines says:

    The UN is going after easy, lazy targets. They don’t lift a finger over the violent and systematic persecution of Christians (or Baha’i, or others) in the Mideast. Or untold human rights abuses in China. And they’ve been playing a wait-and-see game with the Iranian bomb for years.

    For that matter, they don’t even lift a finger over the violent persecution of homosexuals in the Mideast. It’s like they’re going for easy ways of looking busy, paths of least resistance.

  9. Pingback: SATURDAY EXTRA: GLOBAL CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it

  10. irishgirl says:

    I also despise the UN (or as one of my sisters liked to call it, ‘UN, schnum’).
    I agree with you, Father Z: we should cut off its funding NOW!
    Those buildings should be demolished and made into green parkland!
    And I like the suggestions that have been made here for where the UN could go to instead.
    Let it be exiled to some island ‘way out in the middle of the ocean where they can deliberate and pass resolutions to their hearts’ content! What a bunch of America-bashing gasbags most of them are! Throw the whole lot of them out!
    I’m sure that many ‘ordinary’ people in NYC would be glad to see the UN get the boot-every time somebody ‘important’ comes to speak there, it’s a traffic nightmare for all the commuters trying to get to and from work! (‘Important’ people who are good like the Holy Father and the Queen of England are exceptions-I wouldn’t mind if they were visitors)

  11. The Cobbler says:

    “(‘Important’ people who are good like the Holy Father and the Queen of England are exceptions-I wouldn’t mind if they were visitors)”
    While everyone knows the Pope’s real since the NYT doesn’t worry about people who aren’t real, I beg leave to point out that there is no Tooth Fairy, there is no Easter bunny and there is no Queen of England.

    I’m sure those monarchists who favor the Holy Roman Emperor anyway will agree with me.

    On-topic, I don’t see much point in fighting to stop homosexual “marriage” when the culture at large accepts “marriage” of those divorced and of those who do not intend to have children and who use contraception to make sure they can have their fun anyway. There’s no rational difference that matters, is there?

  12. The Cobbler says:

    P.S. I’m not defeatist, I just think we should focus on the core problem (what marriage is all about) rather than a symptom that only comes into play long after the problem is ingrained by other evil practices and which is not different from those other evil practices in any rational way. Given the understanding that most people today have of “marriage” it’s correct to say that homosexual “marriage” is no different; we should be challenging that (mis)understanding, not upholding a distinction that is worthless without a better understanding.

  13. The Cobbler says:

    For instance, from an earlier post I started reading after commenting here initially: “We see in my native state of Minnesota that there is up for a vote an amendment to the state constitution which would defend a proper definition of marriage.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but every one of these I’ve heard of talks about “a union one man and one woman” but not about the union being lifelong by default (I guess the State fewer reasons to forbid remarriage in the case of divorce where separation is justified, but even granting that exception there shouldn’t be no-fault divorce) or “open to the procreation of and raising of children”. It’s absurd to claim a definition of marriage is proper without such elements — it’s not just a pleasant get-together of a man and a woman any more than it is a get-together of two men or two women. People out there aren’t completely brain-dead or anything — they correctly reason that a pleasant get-together of a man and a woman is morally and legally equivalent to a pleasant get-together or two women or two men. It’s the utter lack of comprehension of the self-sacrificing, life-giving element of marriage that has lead through perfect logic to the utter lack of comprehension of the complementing aspect of marriage; we cannot fight the latter in particular, though we can fight both and should place focus on the former. If any aspect connects all it is the life-giving aspect, but that itself flows from and requires the self-sacrificing aspect; fight for these and the biology of the matter will restore the complementary aspect, let these be ignored in favor of hollering over the complementary aspect and you will deservedly lose not only the battle but the whole war.

  14. The Cobbler says:

    (With that said, Fr. Blake in the same post seems to be onto it — we haven’t fought over contraception, cohabitation or divorce and that’s why we’re in the situation we are now. I should probably read more and comment less.)