Christianity Out in the Cold
U.N. and European Union Using
Double Standards
The authors, Eugenia Roccella
and Lucetta Scaraffia, contend that the changes described in the human rights
field are notable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the
United Nations in 1948 made no mention of "reproductive rights." A
key reason why this changed, argues the book, lies in the cultural upheaval of
the 1960s. Those years witnessed a sort of "cultural revolution" not
only in the area of sexuality, but also in the very concept of rights.
In the wake of the upheaval, the book states, sexual
activity became divorced from its link with procreation, the idea of individual
autonomy was exalted, human life was reduced to mere biological material to be
manipulated in the laboratory, and
humanity tried to construct a new utopia based on the satisfaction of sexual
desires. In turn, this utopian vision was increasingly imposed on
International institutions
see the Catholic Church, along with some other religious groups, as a threat to
this way of conceiving rights. As well, the Church's position on some women's
issues, such as the refusal to admit them to the priesthood, has made it a
target of strong criticism. This culminated, the book observes, in the European
Union's refusal to even acknowledge the Christian heritage in
The book also explains that the Catholic vision of
human rights differs markedly in the way rights are founded. Governments and international organizations such as
the United Nations base their concept of rights on ideas from the 18th-century
Enlightenment thinkers, and the American and French revolutions.
The Church, however, links
rights to the concept of human dignity, founded in turn on our being created in
God's image. Also important in Church thought is the concept of natural rights
that are linked to human nature and are, therefore, not capable of being
redefined at whim by governments and international declarations.
Even though the 1948 U.N.
Declaration opted for the secular interpretation of human rights, the Church
looked favorably on the document. In the years that followed, the Church has
actively promoted human rights and has supported many U.N. activities in this
field.
A secular religion
In addition to divergences
over sexual morality and the underlying concepts behind human rights, the
book's authors identify another source of Church-U.N. conflict. In recent years
groups within the United Nations, together with outside organizations, have
tried to establish a sort of alternative religion or ethical code.
The United Nations has been involved with a number of
initiatives involving dialogue between religions, and codes of ethical conduct.
These efforts hinge on a vision that puts all religions and beliefs on the same
level. Attempts have even been made
to formulate a universal moral code to replace the Ten Commandments, along with
the proposal of an Earth Charter, which mixes religion, ecology and paganism.
The mix of New Age ideas,
ecological aspirations and the idealization of tolerance as the guiding
principle of religious activity has met strong criticism from the Church. The
authors cite words by then Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran in 2003. At the time he
was in charge of the Holy See's foreign relations within the Secretariat of
State. He condemned how Christian values are sometimes rejected because they are
seen as being contrary to the principle of tolerance. He also pointed out that
the groups who are behind this criticism are, in many cases, guided by
ideological and economic interests that seek to impose themselves on the weaker
nations.
Persecution unnoticed
By contrast, the European Union is not so involved
in promoting some kind of world religion or universal ethical code. It is,
however, the book explains, influenced
by a strongly secularist orientation that is hostile to the established
churches, especially the Catholic Church.
Roccella and Scaraffia note
how the report by the European Parliament's commission on human rights for 2003
condemns
On the other hand,
The authors also point out that the 2003 report
portrayed religion in general as being the worst enemy of human rights and a
threat to world peace. Over the last
few years EU documents have painted religious belief as being negative. The
documents often tend to lump together all forms of religion as being influenced
by fundamentalism and tending toward intolerance -- and thus incompatible with
a modern pluralist society.
The same human rights commission has expressly
criticized the Catholic Church for its refusal to accept same-sex marriage and
its opposition to the adoption of children by homosexual couples.
As well, the European Union
has been very active in supporting family planning and has provided generous
funding not only for U.N. efforts in this area, but also for the activities of
private organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood Foundation
(IPPF), a leading abortion provider.
The book explains how the
European Union's enthusiasm for "reproductive rights" leads it to
portray the Catholic Church as a foe of women. And while EU documents are often
circumspect in their criticism of Islam's treatment of women, the Church and
the Pope come in for frequent censure.
Planned Parenthood
The book finishes with a
series of appendices, prepared by Assuntina Morresi. Along with a chronology of
U.N. conferences and documents, the appendices also outline the activities of
Planned Parenthood and its founder, Margaret Sanger.
One appendix describes the
operations of IPPF, the international
body formed by Planned Parenthood. Comprising 148 national groups, IPPF is
active in 180 countries and in 2003 had an income of $87 million. IPPF has
close relations with both national governments and the United Nations and the
European Union. In fact, 73% of its
funds in 2003 came from government sources.
The national groups are even
more powerful. The 2003-04 income of the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, the book notes, amounted to $810 million, of which $265.2 million came
from government funds and contracts. The money trail seems to indicate that
Planned Parenthood's brand of rights is more appealing to many governments than
the Church's.
ZE05061105