Vatican Rep. at U.N. on “Impulse-driven rights” v. “Authentic rights”.

From CNA with my emphases and comments:

Vatican official: UN gay ‘rights’ agenda endangers Church’s freedom
By Benjamin Mann

Geneva, Switzerland, Jul 8, 2011 / 06:08 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican’s representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva says a recent resolution on “sexual orientation and gender identity” is part of an agenda that could restrict the Church’s freedom. [Quaeritur: It is part of a larger agenda?  If so, what is that agenda’s ultimate goal?]

“The resolution marks a change. It is seen as the beginning of a movement within the international community and the United Nations  to insert gay rights in the global human rights agenda,” said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, head of the Holy See’s Permanent Mission to the U.N. in Geneva, in a recent e-mail interview with CNA.  [Resist contrary-to-nature sexual politics and you could wind up in the Hague.]

The archbishop noted that a U.S. State Department spokesperson had described the resolution as “a beginning of an international norm that will take hold gradually.” But “if norms are established,” Archbishop Tomasi wondered, “what provisions will be made for freedom of expression on the part of religious leaders?”  [At first, some grudging reassurances will be made, but then they will be systematically challenged in courts.  And the purpose of the challenges will be to hurt the Church as much as it will be to reengineer anthropology.]

He spoke of a “genuine concern” that natural marriages and families “will be socially downgraded with the eventual legislation that puts homosexual “marriage” and the marriage between a man and a woman” on the same level. [Perhaps even lower true marriage as a kind of pay back?] The Vatican representative also said the Church could be threatened by related measures that would mandate homosexual adoptions and introduce “compulsory sex education at school that clashes with Christian values.”  [And when the Church’s minsters teach the Church’s teaching, they will be charged with hate crimes.]

At a June 27 event co-hosted by the U.S. State Department and the Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies organization, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton credited a “major push by American diplomats” for the June 17 passage of what she described as “the first ever U.N. resolution recognizing the human rights of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) people worldwide.”

Clinton called the resolution a “huge step forward,” and stated that “so far as the United States is concerned and our foreign policy, and our values … gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.” [HUH?  Read that again!]

The resolution, which expresses “grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination … against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity,” [The defense of true marriage is not discriminatory (in the sense of oppression).] will not have an immediate effect on U.N. member states. Instead, it formally requests that the High Commissioner for Human Rights undertake an investigation into such acts, in preparation for further dialogue at the council during 2012.

Although the resolution will do little in the short term, the secretary of state described its passage – over the objections of numerous Arab and African counties, as well as  Russia and Moldova – as one of the department’s “momentous achievements” on a matter of “high priority.”

In his remarks to CNA,  Archbishop Tomasi reiterated that the Church does not support violence against those who engage in homosexual behavior, or any attempt by the state to punish an individual simply because of “feelings and thoughts.”

“I think that violence against homosexual persons  is not acceptable and it should be rejected, even though this does not imply an endorsement of their behavior.”

“The terms ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ are not defined in international law,” he noted. “To the extent that they are not external behavior, but feelings and thoughts, they cannot be subjected to punitive laws.”

But “for some people,” he pointed out, “these words are a code phrase for types of conduct.”

The archbishop expanded on a point he has previously tried to impress upon the Human Rights Council, as he observed that all societies regulate sexual behavior to some extent – by forbidding practices like incest, pedophilia, or rape – for the sake of the common good.

He contrasted the “clear message” of God’s creation, which spells out the complementarity of the two sexes, with the U.N.’s contrived and vague terminology of “orientation” and “gender identity.”

[This is a very important point.  Read carefully…]Instead of  ‘gender,’” Archbishop Tomasi said, “the concept we should use is ‘sex,’ a universal term in natural law referring to male and female.”  [Get that?  “Gender identity” is misleading.]

“In fact, it seems that terms such as ‘gender’ or ‘sexual orientation’ are devised to escape reality and to accommodate a variety of feelings and impulses that then are transformed into rights.

This use of “rights” language, to justify practices like same-sex “marriage,” may appear superficially harmless as long as the alleged rights seem to be confined to private life. But Archbishop Tomasi warned that these impulse-driven claims of “rights” are in conflict with authentic rights – such as the free exercise of religion, and the education of one’s children.  [Good distinction.  “Impuse-driven rights” v. “Authentic rights”.]

He pointed to the “traditionally Catholic country” of Spain, as “an example of where the current trend may lead.”

In that country, “legislation has been passed in the last four or five years in favor of homosexual marriage, free abortion in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy, of compulsory education even for children aged 8 to 12 on such issues as masturbation, same-sex marriage, contraception and abortion.”

This arrangement prevails in Spain, “notwithstanding the fact that thousands of parents are opposing this policy that denies their fundamental right to decide on their children’s education.”

Archbishop Tomasi suggested that Catholics today have a responsibility “to clarify legal and moral aspects of the current culture” – by drawing a distinction between desires and rights, promoting the Catholic synthesis of faith and reason, and making it clear that a judgment against homosexuality is not a condemnation of homosexuals[Tell that to Gov. Cuomo and the editors of the NCFishwrap.]

“There is confusion in some people’s mind,” he noted, “in combining a just respect and protection for every person – including homosexuals – and support for the indispensable role of the family, the parents right to educate their children, the support of the natural family for the common good.”

While the secular West may find this ethos increasingly incomprehensible, the Church will continues to promote it. “The teaching of the Church is not conditioned by political consensus,” the archbishop noted. “At times she is misunderstood and even becomes the target of reprisals and persecution.

“Reason and natural law, however, support faith-inspired positions,” he stated, “and the convergence of faith and reason is exceptionally fruitful for the progress and well-being of the human family.”

Another symptom of TEOTWAWKI.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Peggy R says:

    How do these people think this radical agenda is going to go over in Muslim countries? The global Left and Muslims are allies worldwide against Western Civ, but they’re going to clash one day.

    I just read at a dr’s office a Nat Geo article which laments the forced marriages of very young girls in rural areas of Muslim nations. One father told a westerner who’s trying to change this culture that if he doesn’t marry off his daughter, then who will protect her from the barbaric men who molest, rape and attack young women about the countryside? Marriage protects the girls. There were true abuses described in the NG article, but the westerners must have answers for these concerns. [It would be nice if the men were punished instead of the women, of course. But they don’t punish men, so it goes on. Goes to show why the Judeo-Christian view of marriage is the best.]

  2. Alan Aversa says:

    Quaeritur: It is part of a larger agenda? If so, what is that agenda’s ultimate goal?” The agenda’s ultimate goal is a one-government, “New World Order.” Once sexuality is relinquished to the State, the State will have even more power.

    Huxley’s A Brave New World (1932), with all its horrors, was prescient. Read what Wikipedia says about what Huxley calls “The World State:”

    In addition to racial harmony, gender role appears to have been eliminated in The World State. Both men and women are equals in society. However, a third pseudo-sex has been engineered: freemartins, a hermaphroditic group of humans who appear to have been grown as females, but are sterile and exhibit traits of both the male and female sexes. While freemartins appear female, they exhibit some male characteristics, including the growth of facial hair. The purpose of their creation is to allow citizens to engage in sexual intercourse for pleasure without the need for contraception.

    Sound familiar?

  3. DBuote says:


  4. Robert of Rome says:

    It was almost exactly two years ago today (July 10, 2009) that Pope Benedict received President Obama in audience at the Vatican. In advance of that visit, Cardinal Georges Cottier, OP, the former Theologian of the Papal Household, published an article in “30 Days” praising the US President for his “realism” and his search for “common ground” with the Catholic Church on moral issues. The Vatican’s semi-official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, was similiarly optimistic. One hopes that in the light of Secretary of State Clinton’s statement and the US delegation to the UN’s support for this resolution, certain Vatican officials will adjust their views on the Obama Administration, if they haven’t done so already.

  5. Alan Aversa says:

    @Robert of Rome: Not to mention his private, unannounced meeting with Biden this past June 3. Why were the details of this meeting not released? “‘I have no comment. It was a totally private meeting and there will no communiqué,’ Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., told CNA on June 3.”

  6. HyacinthClare says:

    You can always count on me in this combox to say “What?” Please define TEOTWAWKI. Don’t you hate it when somebody never gets the jokes?

  7. wchoag says:

    TEOTWAWKI = The End of the World the World as We Know It

  8. John Nolan says:

    When Tom Lehrer talked about “persons of the opposite gender” it raised a laugh; gender was a grammatical term (masculine, feminine, neuter).

  9. Marlon says:

    TEOTWAWKI = The end of the world as we know it.

  10. wanda says:

    Hillary Clinton. She should know, after all she made time to help set up a Lady (term used loosely) Gaga gig in Rome recently. This while Christians are being killed and persecuted all over the world. Secretary of State? I’d laugh, but, the tragedy is too epic.

  11. Charles E Flynn says:

    Is Sex Just Like Race?, by Matthew J. Franck.

  12. Dr. Eric says:

    Once again, we’ve lost this one. You will not be able to voice the Truth of the Catholic Faith on this issue without serious repercussions within 20 years.

  13. Banjo pickin girl says:

    impuse = impulse ?

  14. Paulo says:

    The Catholic Church has always been in jeopardy – even before institutionalization. Take the Temptation of Jesus. Really? Tempt God? But the evil one did it anyway. Fast forward two or three centuries, and the Fathers of the Church were hard at work debunking heresies (the Arian heresy comes to mind, since it involved stripping Jesus of its divine nature). More recently, we had a concerted effort to empty the liturgy of its meaning, which Benedict XVI is working hard to neutralize. The renewed assault on Christianity (or, more precisely, on Catholicism) that we see nowadays is the same old work of the devil, based on the false promise of a hypothetical future in which men are gods and are in absolute control of the universe… That’s the hidden agenda, of which man is just a peon in the hands of the evil one.

  15. tmitchell says:

    I’ve been having a conversation about the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and chastity with a non-believer, and the topic of “gender identity” came up. My friend brought up an interesting point, and I’m not sure what the Church says about it. What about those who are born with both male and female genitalia (hermaphrodite? “inter-sex?” I’m not sure what it’s called). He seemed to be appalled at the fact that a doctor might decide what sex the infant should be and make the changes, which could possibly result in problems if the person chooses to identify with the other sex later in life. I’m not sure how to respond, and any information would be helpful.

  16. Banjo pickin girl says:

    tmitchell, Your question is why it is problematic that some people in the Church are extrapolating its teachings to areas where it is better to be silent. Your statement that the person “chooses” to identify with the other sex is incorrect, the problem lies with the fact that what some Church people call “so-called gender” has been shown to be hardwired into the brain at the same time the sex organs are developing physically and when an intersex person is mistakenly assigned to the wrong sex the hormones tell the brain this is the case. This is the source of the gender identity problems shown by some people who were stilbestrol exposed during that portion of their fetal development for example. And this is why transgender people feel trapped in the wrong physical body as far back as they can remember. It makes no sense to say that a two year old is “choosing” to be transgender and “failure to bond with the parent of the same sex” is an explanation that doesn’t really make sense given the age.

    That the Church is silent on the origins of homosexuality and other areas except in the areas of morality (italicize this part) in which she is competent (lose italics here) is the wisest course. The Church will always refrain from making pronouncements in this way. She desires us to not jump to conclusions, especially in the uncharitable way in which humans so often do. We do an extremely poor job of loving the sinner and hating the sin and painting all people with sexual problems with the same brush is simply wicked. Christ died for all and the Church does not want us to be so adamant about our lovely and perfect understanding of the mind of God that we drive people away from their salvation.

    The bottom line is that people need to refrain from making pronouncements about anything, moral, legal, scientific, professional that they don’t understand.

    The psalm applies here, we must not go after things that are too high for us.

  17. Banjo pickin girl says:

    As another example of people talking past each other on morality, when the Pope said that condoms don’t work to prevent the spread of HIV, he was talking about what physicians call “patient compliance” not the efficacy of latex to act as a viral barrier. In the viral barrier area, condoms work great. It is the patient compliance that is the problem. However, the pro-condom (or whatever you can call them) people have misread what the Pope said and laugh at him, claiming that he thinks that the pores in latex are larger than a virus. I have a friend who is a virologist who is a Catholic who has come down on the wrong side of this for this very reason.

    There is also the issue of our country sending substandard condoms to Africa which then sit in cargo containers in the hot African sunlight for many days or weeks where they deteriorate and then develop really BIG holes, large enough for water drops to go through.

    We need to stop making pronouncements about everything under the sun because being Christian supposedly gives us a right to monitor other people’s behavior and pray more. Our Lady has requested many times for us to pray as the first resort, not the last resort.

  18. tmitchell says:

    I tried to explain to someone the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and chastity. I didn’t try to convert or condemn. This person misunderstood what Holy Mother Church teaches, and I tried my best to explain it to them. Ours is a message of love, not hate. That was the basis of the entire explanation and clarification. I did not make pronouncements or attempt to “explain away the gay” but instead simply repeated what it says in the Catechism: people with homosexual inclinations, of which there are many, must be treated with respect and sensitivity, but the act of homosexual sex is incompatible with God’s plan and is never acceptable. Hardly a pronouncement.

    He brought up some things that I wasn’t sure about, so I figured I would ask if anyone had any advice for how to proceed. The language used was his, and I used them because I lack the knowledge of what would be more suitable terminology. I suppose I could have put quotation marks around every questionable term. I’ll remember that next time.

Comments are closed.