To the world’s eyes, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a singular condemnation of the sexual abuse of children carried out and covered up by clergy of the Catholic Church. How confusing then that the response of the Church should focus on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. Is the Church being evasive? trying to change the subject? clamoring for moral high ground? Going merely by the reports of our vigilant friends in the media, the answer would be yes to all three.
Yet, the Church was actually on point with their response. Before me is the “Advance Unedited Version” of the Committee’s concluding observations on the Holy See, dated January 31, 2014. In a spirit of defiance against the journalistic practice of shorten and summarize, I here offer full experts, with some added commentary, from this 16 page mess to demonstrate that the core substance of the document is in fact an attack on the Church’s moral teachings.
Tomorrow, we will look at those sections highlighted by the press concerning the sexual abuse of children and then on Wednesday I will offer some concluding thoughts, as a lay Catholic, on this document. Sure this approach is clunky, unorganized and inefficient, but so is the UN and I can’t claim to be superior to my subject. Let us begin with:
Abortion:
The Committee urges the Holy See to review its position on abortion which places risks on the life and health of pregnant girls and to amend Canon 1398 relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted. (¶ 55)
The Committee is concerned about the continued practice of anonymous abandonment of babies organized by Catholic organizations in several countries through the use of the so-called “baby boxes”. (¶ 35)
The Committee strongly urges the Holy See to… determine the roots causes of the practice… taking into account the right of children to know their biological parents and siblings. (¶ 36)
Alasdair MacIntyre once pointed out that the UN had long abandoned any attempt to provide philosophical backing for their pronouncements, or to even retain a veneer of coherency. The “right of children to know their biological parents,” implies a biological process by which the child comes about. To affirm this “right,” while also affirming the “right” to abortion leads to the peculiar conclusion that the baby in the womb has absolutely no common identity with the baby out of it. As if each child pulled off a move worthy of Sherlock Holmes, where whatever it was that was occupying the womb disappears miraculously right at the moment of birth and is replaced with an actual child, who has a “right to know” its biological parents. This is the kooky world of UN rationality, which makes Ken Ham look scientifically rigorous.
More disturbing, is the feigned ignorance of the UN concerning the “root causes” of the practice of “abandonment.” The baby placed in the “baby box” has not been carelessly abandoned; she has been salvaged from the trash heap or the sewer. Baby boxes exist as alternatives to abortion. Better that the child should discover the world without her biological parents, than never discover the world at all. That the UN has here characterized the practice as child abandonment, which is in violation of the “right of children to know their biological parents,” raises in my mind the hitherto unconsidered possibility that baby boxes may soon be destroyed in the name of those persons they contain. What a warm world for children that would be.
And while they were at it:
Contraception:
The Committee is seriously concerned about the negative consequences of the Holy See’s position and practices of denying adolescents access to contraception, as well as to sexual and reproductive health and information. (¶ 56)
The Committee recommends that the Holy See: Assess the serious implications of its position on adolescents’ enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality…. Place adolescents best interests at the centre of all decisions affecting their health…. The Holy See should ensure that sexual and reproductive health education and prevention of HIV/AIDS is a part of the mandatory curriculum of Catholic schools and targeted at adolescents girls and boys, with special attention to preventing early pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. (¶ 57c)
Makenzie Wethington fell 3500 feet from an airplane because her parachute didn’t open. Why did she jump out of a plane in the first place? Because she expected it would. To have safety mechanisms in place is not a fail-safe guarantee that they will work. But it is a guarantee that people will count on them. Were there no parachutes, there wouldn’t be anyone voluntarily jumping out of an airplane, and certainly there would be no 16 year old girls paying for the chance to try it.
Yet, the UN insists that the Catholic Church must prioritize the “prevention of HIV/AIDS” while scolding the Church for “denying adolescents access to contraception.” Be it barrier methods, chemical methods or (God forbid) surgical methods, contraception cannot always prevent the spread of STI’s and STD’s. The parachute doesn’t always open. Sadly, the reason the UN insists upon this point is because they operate with a model which conceives of a healthy adolescent life as a sexually active life. Show them a slut and they will show you an exemplar, but show me a virgin and I will show you someone without AIDS. The UN finds itself in the awkward position of desiring the fruits of chastity, without having to go through the trouble of actually cultivating chastity.
Which brings us to:
Homosexuality:
While also noting as positive the progressive statement delivered in July 2013 by Pope Francis, the Committee is concerned about the Holy See’s past statements and declarations on homosexuality which contribute to the social stigmatization of and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents and children raised by same sex couples. (¶ 25)
The Committee recommends that the Holy See bring all its laws and regulations, as well as its policies and practices, in conformity with article 2 of the Convention and promptly abolish the discriminatory classification of children born out of wedlock as illegitimate children. The committee also urges the Holy See… to support efforts at international level for the decriminalization of homosexuality. (¶ 26)
If the UN is bidding the Holy See consider a pair of homosexuals and some children to be “legitimate,” what then of the “right of children to know their biological parents”? One doesn’t even need Catholic moral teachings, which the UN has failed to grasp the subtlety of, to argue the conclusion that children raised by homosexuals are not being justly treated. How can there be a “right” affirming the biological process of conception and pregnancy, culminating in that child “knowing” his or her parents, alongside a recognition of “diverse” family settings? The UN implies in the first “right” that mom and dad are important and then demands recognition and acceptance of a living situation which openly flaunts the sexual and reproductive norm.
Speaking of the sexual and reproductive norm, it appears the UN is at least partially aware of the vast teachings of Blessed John Paul the Great on human sexuality. Concerning the moral inheritance left by the late Pope:
The Committee regrets that the Holy See continues to place emphasis on the promotion of complementarity and equality in dignity, two concepts which differ from equality in law and practice…. The Committee also regrets that the Holy See did not provide precise information on the measures taken to promote equality between boys and girls and to remove gender stereotypes from Catholic schools textbooks as requested by the Committee in 1995. (¶ 27)
The Committee also urges the Holy See to take active measures to remove from Catholic schools textbooks all gender stereotyping which may limit the development of the talents and abilities of boys and girls…. (¶ 28)
The Committee recommends that the Holy See ensure that Canon Law provisions recognize the diversity of family settings and do not discriminate children based on the type of family they live with. (¶ 49)
Perhaps it is a sign of my youth, but I haven’t yet been able to forget the stark horror of the first chapter of Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World.’ While the test tube babies were a grim enough sight, what was worse was the “education” the children received. No “Great Books” program or course in the arts, the education of the brave new world is one of indoctrination in the beliefs and practices of the ruling world-state. In Huxley’s world this was a belief in, and practice of, uninhibited sexual activity. Huxley shows his reader two toddlers fondling each other. No doubt the children were well within their “rights.”
The concern here is that the UN calls, in the plainest language possible, for Catholic School curriculum be altered to suite the whims and fancies of what ever prevailing worldview currently haunts the minds of the members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Catholic schools, which have been a haven from such nonsense as Common Core, are here singled out as different with a need to be brought into conformity. Huxley repeatedly reminded his readers that he was serious about his claims in ‘Brave New World.’ He was certain that a world-state would seek to insert itself into the education of children for the purpose of spreading their propaganda. Reading this document, I conclude he was right.
No comments yet
