Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Posts Tagged ‘U.N.’

Language Matters

March 13th, 2015, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Language makes a big difference, especially when there is an overt agenda to shape public opinion, and when the objective of the agenda runs counter to truth and morals.  Let’s revisit a few examples of hijacked language, to shed some light on the current question “What in the world is the Vatican thinking?”

CHOICE

least of theseThe pro-abortion lobby of 40 years ago didn’t use the term “pro-baby-murder,” and they made those who did into social outcasts. Insisting on a term like “baby murder,” would have better framed the battle, and revealed the real intent of the pro-death contingent. But, almost without consciously thinking, pro-lifers took up the words “pro-choice” to write and talk about the other side, and inevitably played into the hands of the culture of death.  After all,  isn’t having a choice a good thing?  Who can argue with having the right to pick and choose?   Aaah!  But choose what? That is where the agenda and the language run silent. Thus, the pro-death lobby was able to put the emphasis on the woman rather than on the child, and shaped the politics for 40 years and into the future, entrenching themselves on ceded ground by controlling the language and shaping the public conversation.

The rightly-named “pro-lifers” aided and abetted the pro-death lobby by using their language, by using the term “pro-choice” themselves, strengthening the culture of death, laying the groundwork for the current efforts  to characterize pro-lifers as terrorists.  Language does matter.  Now the same “right to choose” permeates the nascent wave of euthanasia. Many Catholics report that during the 42 years of shame they can count on one hand the number of sermons they heard against abortion.  Some say they never heard any such sermon.  It can pretty well be said that while language was being hijacked, “the pulpits were silent.”

MARRIAGE

A similar misuse of language permeates the same-sex unions agenda. Allowing that lobby to seize the word “marriage” distorts the entire issue,  and the irrational becomes difficult to rationally debate.  Using the word “marriage” to describe what the Judeo-Christian ethic (and others) saw as immoral and sinful for thousands of years isn’t even debated on the grounds of injury to the moral structure and/or good order of a country.  Use of the word “marriage” prepared the way for arguments not about the intrinsic identity of marriage, not about the care of children, but about perceived elements of marriage: as a good, a social institution, a legal structure, a celebratory event, a sexual relationship.   The elements, or the denial thereof, framed the argument for “same-sex marriage” even though it can never meet the test of true marriage.   Hence, it was necessary for that lobby to strike down the legitimately passed Defense Of Marriage Act, either in social practice, in the courts, or both.  The procreation of  children,  as a vital aspect of marriage, is naturally unachievable in a same-sex union, yet it has not prevented vain attempts to create trophy progeny.  And the pro-abortion lobby, by devaluing life and children, cultivated the ground for treating children as an afterthought to the argument.  

As in the case for abortion, the government’s role in driving the social engineering experiment is highly visible, from the early closing of adoption centers which refused to place children with same sex couples, to opening the military to all sorts of questionable permissiveness, to the economic pressures on African countries to force them to permit same-sex unions.  On a simple citizen impact level, when a baker is fined $100,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for such a union, there can be no doubt that cruel and unusual punishment is part of the strategy.  

By ceding the use of the word “marriage,” significant ground was overrun, which likely cannot be reclaimed on human effort alone, especially since people of good heart, though uncertain understanding, easily bought the civil rights argument.  And, again, “the pulpits were silent.”  Or mostly silent.  This past weekend, at the English Synod, Cardinal Burke (of recent heroic action) was quoted in LifeSiteNews as saying to “brace for martyrdom over marriage.”

GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE

It appears to me that those who most embrace the political concept of Global Warming are those with the least knowledge of science, or those who are scientists getting paid for their work in “proving” that global warming exists (or will exist).  In a prior post on Cleansing Fire I gave my reasons against buying into this tenet of the Religion of the Environment (the one global religion to unite the masses.)   Usually when the agenda-shapers launch their efforts they grab language that will become the battle cry for an extended period.  It is my perception that “global warming” is more easily debunked than “climate change” — not because either is true, but it covers both directions.  It is hardly credible to stand on top of our winter whitestuff crying “global warming,” but the agenda shapers have switched to “climate change” and mumble about something happening somewhere else causing cold spots (or hot spots.)  (I remember when it was called “weather” and some humorist quipped “Weather!  Everybody talks about it.  Nobody does anything about it.”  Now we have people in elected office who misunderstood the humor and have decided to “do something about it.”)  Aaaahh!  The Lord must laugh at their choice of a battlefield. And we should remember, in this context, that we are awaiting an encyclical from Pope Francis on global warming / climate change which has the risk of making him the modern Pope Urban VIII.  For another view, see what you think of Newsmax yesterday “There is no Global Warming.”  

So “Climate Change” is all inclusive, because whatever happens weather-wise the agenda-shapers can say “SEE! We told you.”  The variation in natural swings are over long periods of time, and now will be ignored, and every hurricane, snow-storm or flood will be attributed to “Climate Change” — something we need to be taxed to prevent.  While we can’t predict any outcomes on plain foolishness (as we can on more glaringly moral issues), we can be sure increased taxes will be one result. How can we be so sure?  Because manipulating the language is easier to understand if we follow the money.  Same-sex unions create votes which translate to power and thence to money.  And the recipients of the abortion largesse (like Planned Parenthood) are grateful too.

DOESN’T THE VATICAN “GET IT?”

Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi, Vatican's UN Representative

Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi, Vatican’s UN Representative

All of the above would simply be a tirade on the use of language for abuse and manipulation were it not needed as a reminder on the latest mixed signals coming from “The Vatican,” reported in an excellent LifeSiteNews article (3/12/15) by Steve Jalsevac entitled: “Vatican use of Population Control Word ‘sustainable’ at UN worrisome.”   I encourage you to read the entire, short article.  Here are some highlights:

“Current Vatican representatives at the UN do not appear to understand the dangers of uncritically using key, population control invented phrases in official Vatican statements to the United Nations … that … are causing the Church to give huge international reinforcement to the deceits and manipulations of de-populationist agendas. The use of the phrases “sustainable environment,” “sustainability reports” and “sustainability-related impact and performance” in a March 9 statement by Archbishop Tomasi, the Vatican’s chief representative to the UN, is the latest example of this worrisome trend.”
(more…)

Week 20 in Catholic Media, 2014

May 11th, 2014, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Let’s Turn the Question Around:  Is the U.N. Torturing the Catholic Church?

It is not as wild a question as it sounds.  On May 5th, LifeSiteNews published an article on a UN official equating the Church’s abortion teaching to “TORTURE!”

 

UN official to Vatican: Catholic teaching on abortion may be a form of ‘torture’

BY BEN JOHNSON

Flying a flag upside down is the international symbol of distress.  If there were ever an organization in distress, it seems to be the UN.

Flying a flag upside down is the international symbol of distress. If there were ever an organization in distress, it seems to be the UN.

“The Holy See’s goal is to prevent children from being tortured or killed before birth, as is stipulated in the Convention,” he said in an outline drawn up before the hearings. “For example, in Canada, 622 living babies were delivered after failed abortion attempts, between 2000 and 2001. 66 such cases were registered in the UK in 2005. Some methods of late-term abortions constitute forms of torture, particularly in the case of dilation and evacuation, where ‘the fetus, still alive, is dismembered to be pulled out of the womb in pieces.’”

“From what I am reading, this is no more than UN propaganda trying to make the Catholic Church seem ‘extreme’ for not advocating for abortion in the case of rape or sexual assault,” abstinence speaker Pam Stenzel, who was conceived in rape, told LifeSiteNews. “It is not news that some members of the UN want abortion access for all women, including minors, and when access is denied they consider that a violation of ‘women’s rights.’”  One of the participants in the hearings told the UN committee the questioning was little more than anti-Catholicism and abortion advocacy masquerading as concern for the vulnerable.  “The Catholic Church is no stranger to persecution and intolerance,” Ashley McGuire of Catholic Voices USA, said in Geneva. “But it is a shame to see [non-governmental organizations] attacking the Church at the UN, some trying to use this committee to advance an ideological agenda, so often because the Church will not change her moral positions.”  McGuire added that the very notion of human rights that guide the committee “would not exist without the contribution of Christianity, without the unique Christian worldview that every human being has an inherent dignity and is worthy of love and respect.”

“I urge the committee to resist the swelling tide of anti-Christian intolerance that demands that the Catholic Church change her canon law and conform to modernity’s callous devaluation of the lives of vulnerable people, or as Pope Francis has put it, ‘our throwaway culture,” McGuire said. “Intolerance has no place within the world body.”  Far from helping victims of rape or sexual assault, abortion deepens their trauma, Stenzel told LifeSiteNews….

This was the second time in recent months that the world body had openly criticized the Holy See’s ancient doctrinal position opposing abortion in all instances. In February, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child similarly chided the Catholic Church, claiming its teachings on abortion and contraception harmed young women and minor girls around the world.

When it became a party to the international document in 2002, the Vatican described the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as “a valid and suitable instrument for fighting against acts that constitute a serious offence against the dignity of the human person.”

 

The UN pressures Catholics over curriculum, abortion (Home School Legal Defense Assn.)

BY WILLIAM A ESTRADA

May 6, 2014 (HSLDA) – HSLDA has fought on many occasions to stop ratification of United Nations treaties, most recently with our work to defeat the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). While there are many reasons HSLDA opposes the CRPD, one key reason is that the United Nations is openly hostile to religious freedom, the right to life, home school freedom, and parental rights.  (Full article is here.)

This hostility was on full display in a recent report from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (the committee established by the dangerous UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). In the report that was supposed to be a regular review of the progress of the Holy See (the official name of the Vatican State) in implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the committee instead attacked the Catholic Church and the church’s teachings.

The committee wasted no time in using the Convention on the Rights of the Child to pressure the Catholic Church to change its teaching about the family and control what is taught in private classrooms. It urged the Vatican to “refrain from using terminology that could challenge equality between girls and boys” and to “take active measures to ensure that textbooks used in Catholic schools do not contain gender stereotyping that might limit the development of the talents and abilities of boys and girls and undermine their educational and life opportunities.”

Asserting Control

This is nothing less than the UN trying to control what textbooks are used in private parochial schools. If this or other UN treaties were ratified in the U.S., this is evidence that UN committees would try to oversee the textbooks used by homeschool families and how parents teach their children.

The committee then moved on to child rearing and corporal discipline and had this to say about the Bible and the family: “The Committee urges the Holy See to … [a]mend the Canon Law and Vatican City State laws to explicitly prohibit all corporal punishment of children, including within the family … and use its authority to promote positive, non-violent and participatory forms of child-rearing, and ensure that an interpretation of the Scriptures as not condoning corporal punishment is reflected in the teaching and other activities of the Church and incorporated into all theological education and training.”

As if this weren’t enough, the committee then attacked the Catholic Church’s traditional position on the sanctity of human life by urging the Vatican to “review its position on abortion, which places obvious risks on the life and health of pregnant girls, and to amend Canon 1398 [this is the Catholic Church’s teaching that procuring abortion incurs an automatic excommunication] relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

Finally, the committee urged the Vatican to “withdraw all its reservations to the Convention and to ensure that the Convention has precedence over internal laws and regulations.” This is yet another reason why HSLDA has warned against the U.S. Senate ratifying UN treaties like the CRC and CRPD. Even if the Senate were to attach reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to such a treaty in an attempt to amend problematic sections, the UN would always be pressuring the U.S. to withdraw our reservations. It would be a never-ending battle to protect the RUDs.

Conclusion

The modern UN has become a powerful global player that is hostile to many freedoms that we as Americans and homeschoolers take for granted. UN treaties have become tools used by unelected, power-hungry international bureaucrats to gain control over nations and free peoples.

We cannot forget that this is the same corrupt UN that selected Iran, an international pariah, for a high-level position on the UN Disarmament and International Security Committee. The UN selected Robert Mugabe, a man under an international travel ban for ethnic cleansing, to be a “leader for tourism.” The UN recently drafted the Arms Trade Treaty, which if ratified by the U.S., would gut the Second Amendment and constitutional liberties which we take for granted. And now the UN is coming after the Catholic Church and the family.

Questions to Contemplate

When will Church officials recognize that treaties with secular organizations, especially the UN, represents an unequal yoking that can never succeed?  

When will enough proof be on the table?  

How much persecution will it take to wake-up?

 

Week 06 in Catholic Media, 2014

February 9th, 2014, Promulgated by Diane Harris

 

ScreenShot351 

 

 

At the UN — collegial communications or a pseudo-tribunal?

In Week 03,  I skipped over a story in  Zenit and in the National Catholic Register about a presentation on January 16th in Geneva, Switzerland, to the UN by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, Permanent Observer to the United Nations.  The main reason the story did not ‘make the cut’ that week was because it appeared to just be  a report, a speech, on a weighty subject but seemingly not being any more than a “communication.”  It seemed not to change anything in current practice, and most of the news stories covered here are about substantive changes or early warning alerts.  This one originally seemed to  be not much more than a gracious, international accommodation on a subject of mutual interest, and discussed between the parties, ‘from time to time.’  But this week the matter ‘exploded’ into front page headlines,  revealing an importance far greater than originally thought.  So, this week, the entire update is dedicated to the severe dictatorial UN report coming out of what seemed to be an innocuous ‘good faith’ presentation.  The last two articles are especially worth reading, to better understand the worldwide basis of attack on Catholic Moral Teaching.

Background:  On January 16, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi,  gave an address to the “UN Committee on the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocols.”  Click on the link to read the content of that address.  The reader will likely not find any surprises in the address, but rather pastoral concern, and a statement of commitment to obligations, as well as acknowledgement that the Catholic Church is among many organizations dealing with the problem of child abuse, made worse when it is propagated by those most trusted.  The Zenit story also noted:  “Aside from the Holy See, the reports of several countries were presented to the committee, including Russia, Germany, Portugal, Congo and Yemen.”

Abp. Silvano Tomasi

Abp. Silvano Tomasi

In part, Abp. Tomasi noted in his address:  “Today’s session, is an important occasion to reaffirm the value and the procedures of the convention and to accept any good advice that is given that can be helpful in the protection of children.”  There was also a timeliness, related to Pope Francis’ recent  approval of the establishment of a Commission for the protection of children and the pastoral care of abuse victims.  Abp. Tomasi expressed his assurance that the Holy See will fulfill its international obligations as well as to take the observations and comments of the committee “into due account.”  He said that the commission established by Pope Francis “will study the input and observations given by the committee.”   Now it sounds like the “input and observations” given, this week, went way beyond anything the Vatican could have anticipated.  Moreover, there are accusations that the feedback given, if it can be called feedback, substantially ignores everything  that was presented by Abp. Tomasi, even to the extent of rendering a report allegedly prepared even before his  presentation, with an agenda outside the expected, aka “with an axe to grind.”

 
Fr. Federico Lombardi

Fr. Federico Lombardi

On that same day, Vatican Spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi put out a statement on the reasons for the address to the U.N. committee.  The Zenit article is entitled:  “Vatican Spokesman Explains Background to U.N. Child Abuse Hearing.”  It goes on: “The Holy See is deeply saddened by the scourge of sexual abuse of minors, which harms millions of children throughout the world,” acknowledging that “sadly, certain members of the clergy have been involved in such abuse.”  Written in Italian, the note offers a history of the Holy See’s adherence to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as its response to questions posed by the committee.  The statement, unfortunately, comes across as somewhat defensive.  Zenit states:  “Fr. Lombardi explains that the enforcement of laws pertaining to the protection of minors lies with the civil authorities in countries that are party to the Convention, and are responsible for its implementation.”  He highlights the “Holy See’s position as a sovereign subject of international law, and the limits of the Holy See’s rights and responsibilities regarding the conduct of priests and religious worldwide.”  Fr. Lombardi says “it is not rare to find that the questions posed [by the committee] – above all where they refer to the sexual abuse of minors – seem to presuppose that bishops or religious superiors act as representatives or delegates of the Pope – [though this is] utterly without foundation.”   It was also mentioned that there had been reportedly anger that the Holy See would  not share the results of its own internal inquiry into sex abuse. The Vatican responded by saying it is “not the practice of the Holy See to disclose information on the religious discipline of members of the clergy or religious, according to canon law,” in order to “protect the witnesses, the accused and the integrity of the Church process.”

Slap-down by UN Committee ReplyWhether there was something in the Archbishop’s address to the committee, or something in the statement of Fr. Lombardi, that provoked a heavy-handed response from the UN, or not, remains a point of potential argument, but readers of the sharp UN reply observe that nothing in that reply evidences that they read or heard the address by Abp. Tomasi.  That observation almost implies a response was prepared in advance.  In any event, the original news stories that there was such a presentation in Geneva, and that the reasons were explained by Fr. Lombardi, are eclipsed by the follow-on words of the UN reply.  As the popular press would have it, the UN made nothing less than a call for the Church to change doctrine and Canon Law; i.e. to accept the immoral practice of the world, instead of the word of God.  It would seem to be one more evidence that “conscience rights” will increasingly be unrecognized and disrespected.

Reading even the highlights of the UN report, one can sense what appears to be a deliberate escalation of  hostility, especially of the UN toward the Vatican, and one has to wonder, “For what purpose?”  And THAT is the reason it is important to follow what is happening very closely.  In the best case, it is just a petulant backlash between figureheads of two organizations.  At its worst, it is a severe escalation of religious persecution of the Catholic Church.  Several writers clearly put forth the observation that it is the more onerous interpretation.  It is also an illustration of what happens when an organization loses the moral high ground, being no longer able to lead but instead becoming even more vulnerable to attack.  Unfair as the attack may be, there is one level at which Church leadership has only itself to blame.  Or, said another way, when the shepherds are struck, the sheep are scattered.  But in the heat of battle, we are probably 20-50 years too early for the analysis.  So, back to the unfolding story:

Fr. Lombardi: UN Report Shows “Serious” Lack of Understanding of Holy See

Vatican Spokesman Responds to UN Committee Recommendations on Sexual Abuse, Vatican City, Feb. 7, 2014

Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, … made several clarifications regarding the reaction of the UN committee on the Rights of the Child report.  The following are excerpts from the statement published on Vatican Radio.

  • “The UN committee strongly reproached the Vatican for its handling of abuse cases, while not taking many of the implementations to the Convention that the Holy See observed into consideration. It also recommended that the Church change its stance on homosexuality and abortion.”
  • The committee’s recent report, he said, “has aroused extensive reaction and response” [and] appears “to present grave limitations.”
  • The recommendations “have not taken adequate account of the responses, both written and oral, given by the representatives of the Holy See,” … “Those who have read and heard these answers do not find proportionate reflections of them in the document of the committee, so as to suggest that it was practically already written, or at least already in large part blocked out before the hearing.”
  • Fr. Lombardi also called the UN committee’s lack of understanding of the nature of the Holy See, a “serious” matter.  “[Are we dealing with] an inability to understand, or an unwillingness to understand? In either case, one is entitled to amazement,” Fr. Lombardi wrote.
  • He said a more serious matter was the committee’s interference in moral and doctrinal positions of the Church regarding contraception, abortion and human sexuality.  Those interferences, he said, were made in light of “the committee’s own ideological vision of sexuality itself.”

Fr. Lombardi concluded his statement, saying the UN “carries the brunt of the negative consequences in public opinion, for the actions of a committee that calls itself [by the UN name].”  Over the next few days opinion within the Church seemed to swing more toward indignation and backlash against the UN reply.  An “early responder” to the matter was Fr. Boquet, whose reply was covered by LifeSiteNews and published by Human Life International.  While usually giving links, the content is so important in framing out where this confrontation seems to be headed, that we cover most of the article below.  See also, received today, Feb. 9th, Brian Fraga’s contribution:  “UN Committee to Vatican “Change Church Teaching.”   That NC Register link is http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.n.-committee-to-vatican-change-church-teaching/  and also see the NC Register link for an article by the founder of the Faith and Reason Institute, Robert Royal, on “The New Rights at the UN are Dead Wrong”  http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-new-rights-at-the-u.n.-are-dead-wrong/

 ScreenShot006

 

“UN Committee Statement Requesting Changes in Catholic Moral Teaching is an Egregious Attack on Religious Freedom”

Fr. Boquet

Fr. Boquet

 FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, Feb. 6, 2014 –The “Concluding Observations” on the report of the Holy See released Wednesday by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child are a flagrant and egregious attack on the religious freedom of the Catholic Church, her right and obligation to uphold the dignity of the human person and her estimated 1.2 billion members around the world….  “The audacity of the people who wrote this report is simply amazing in dictating to the Catholic Church what her moral teachings should be in order to advance false and dangerous notions of ‘tolerance’ and ‘rights’ so often pushed by those with an anti-life, anti-family agenda,” said Fr. Boquet. “While these are only the thoughts of a few members of one UN committee, we should take seriously any document coming from the United Nations telling a billion people worldwide that their deeply held moral beliefs are inappropriate and need to change.  They are using the priest abuse issue to delegitimize the moral teachings of the Church and attack her freedom and right to exercise those beliefs around the world,” he said.

The UN committee’s comments make several requests of the Holy See to amend Canon Law, the law of the Catholic Church, including Canon 1398 calling for latae sententiae excommunication for those who procure an abortion. The report also criticizes the Church’s moral teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality.  The UN committee also requests that the Holy See identify in Canon Law “circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted,” an impossible task considering the Church’s teaching on the dignity and sacredness of human life from conception until natural death.

“In addition to their attack on the Church’s religious freedom, it’s quite alarming that a UN committee that exists to protect ‘the rights of the child’ would make a statement so supportive of killing children through abortion, really a criminal act against humanity, that it actually asks one of the world’s major religions to change its moral teaching in order to make it happen,” Fr. Boquet said.

“The report also makes an unjust and unsubstantiated charge that the Church’s teachings on homosexual behavior “contribute to the social stigmatization of and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents and children raised by same sex couples.  This is a very serious charge, made very casually and without evidence,” said Fr. Boquet. “It is the type of calumny usually only seen in the most extreme ideological attacks directed at the Catholic Church, which is why it is so disappointing for an official agency of the United Nations to legitimize this slander by including it in an official document. Indeed, could one not also accuse the United Nations of encouraging violence against Catholics on exactly the same grounds, especially since the accuser does not need to provide evidence of actual incitement to violence in making the charge?”

“The Catholic Church and Catholics around the world deserve a correction of the deeply and thoroughly flawed Concluding Observations document which attacks the freedom of Catholics to express our faith without persecution,” said Fr. Boquet. “This type of language inciting hatred and violence towards Catholics cannot be allowed to stand.”

This issue is so serious, that we are only concentrating on a single issue this week. 

Next week, we’ll catch up on ‘the rest of the story.’