This is an excellent presentation of the logic behind the Vatican rejection of the proposal being considered by the United Nations - The proposal would seem to amount to a Charter of Homosexual Rights that would override more basic rights such as freedom of expression and of religion.
See the text of Mons. Migliore's presentation at the UN yesterday in the post above about the Pope's day and other Vatican events.
Defense of rights
versus ideology
Translated from
the 12/20/08 issue of
The French document presented to the United Nations is not intended, primarily, to decriminalize homosexuality in nations where it is still persecuted as a crime, as the media, in simplification, have been reporting.
If that were so, there would have been no reason for the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations in New York to criticize the document.
The Catholic Church, moreover, respecting healthy secularity in a State, considers that free sexual acts among adults should not be treated as crimes to be punished by civilian authorities.
In this regard, the Church Magisterium recently affirmed that the dignity of homosexual persons" should always be respected in words, in actions and in legislation" (Letter on the pastoral ministry to homosexual persons, No. 10), and that in their regard, one must "avoid every form of unjust discrimination" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No, 2358).
The position of the Church on this subject, it must be recalled, has always been moderate and consistent with its moral teaching.
But the document in question actually addresses something else: it promotes an ideology, that of 'gender identity' and 'sexual orientation'. These categories do not have any definition in international law. They are being introduced as new categories of discrimination, and its advocates are seeking to apply them to the determination of human rights.
But these are concepts that are controversial on an international level, and not only to the Catholic Church - insofar as they imply that sexual identity is defined only by culture. and therefore, susceptible to being transformed at will, according to individual desire or historical and social influences.
In essence, to introduce these categories would negate the primarily biological anchorage of sexual differentiation and treat it as a mere limitation of its significance, rather than its intrinsic significance.
The concept would impel the false conviction that sexual identity is the product of individual choice, unchallengeable, and above all, meritorious of public recognition in every circumstance.
This promotes a false idea of sexual parity, which would define men and women according to an abstract idea of individuality.
Unfortunately, these are no longer marginal theories, if one considers the proposals to attribute family rights to homosexual couples - including those relative to adoption and to assisted procreation - based on the fallacy that heterosexual polarity is
not a founding element of society but an arbitrary criterion to be nullified.
That is why the attempt to introduce these new categories of discrimination is tied to that of obtaining the equiparation of same-sex unions to matrimony, and to allow such couples the right to adopt or 'procreate' children [through assisted methods of reproduction using third parties]. Children who would risk, among other things, never knowing who one of their biological parents is.
That is not the only danger.
The introduction of such new categories of discrimination places at risk the exercise of other human rights. Think of freedom of expression, or freedom of thought, of conscience, of religion.
Religions, for instance, could see themselves limited in their right to transmit their teachings, when they maintain - as the Church does - that the free exercise of homosexual behavior cannot be penalized even when they do not consider it morally acceptable.
That would violate one of the primary rights expressed upon which the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based: the freedom of religion.
Where in this article does the Vatican attack the French government, as Richard Owen claimed in his Times of London article?
Thanks to Lella's example on her blog, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about homosexuality:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
And this is from a 1986 instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the pastoral care of homosexuals:
8. ...increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it.
These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour.
One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing.
Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It
is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda.
She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
10.
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
....
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 20/12/2008 08:55]