Are You, or Have You Ever Been, a Member of the Catholic Church?

Facebook 0
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
StumbleUpon 0

UN in action



A guest post from commenter John By Any Other Name on the attack on the Vatican made by that expensive farce that goes by the name of the United Nations:



Yesterday, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a report, purportedly over the sexual abuse scandal involving the Catholic Church. Forget for a moment the average Catholic’s (need I qualify that with “non-dissenting”?…or “orthodox”?) bias in reading this report…and forget for a moment the facts of the scandal…that’s what most of the “top and bottom of the hour” reporting is focusing on…yet, this same UN report is attempting to get the Vatican to change its own doctrine and canon law.  How consonant this is with the current Administration’s chilling efforts related to the HHS contraception/abortifacient mandate as well (Sebellius and Little Sisters of the Poor) as the general trend of lawsuits related to the redefinition of marriage (Christian bakers and gay “marriage” wedding cakes).   Breitbart gives us the details: 

The Committee specifically told the Church “to review its position on abortion which places obvious 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.”


The Committee lamented “the negative consequences of the Holy See’s position and practices of denying access to contraception, as well as to sexual and reproductive health and information.” The Committee directed the Church “to access the serious implications of its position on adolescents’ enjoyment of highest attainable standard of health and overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality…”

The Committee is also displeased with the Church for not recognizing same-sex families: “The Committee recommends that the Holy See ensure that Canon Law provisions recognize the diversity of family settings and do not discriminate children (sic) based on the type of family they live in.”

The Committee also charged the Church with contributing to violence against homosexuals: “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.”

For some analysis refuting the alleged purpose of the report, the sexual abuse scandal, here’s this at Crisis magazine:

Denouncing the Vatican for adopting policies that “allowed priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children,” the UN Committee demanded that the Church hand over its archives on sexual abuse of children so that the culprits, as well as those who concealed their crimes, could be held accountable.

Ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church has already handed over the files—and the culprits—the UN Committee took the opportunity to criticize the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception, and abortion. This was the real reason for the Committee’s diatribe against the now decades-old clerical abuse scandal—a scandal with wildly exaggerated claims and unsubstantiated allegations.

 The reality is that counter to inflated statistics of “tens of thousands” of child-victims, and the image of the alliterative “pedophile priest,” nearly all of the cases of sexual abuse by priests involved homosexual liaisons between priests and very young men in their teens or early 20s. While homosexual activities with minors are criminal offenses, and immoral, they are certainly not examples of pedophilia or child molestation.

Undeterred by data, the United Nations Committee ignores the fact that Catholic clergy are not represented in the sexual abuse phenomenon at a rate higher than or even equal to their numbers in the clerical profession as a whole.  In a comprehensive study of more than 20 years of data on clerical abuse, Philip Jenkins, the Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor, and author of Pedophiles and Priests, found no evidence that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination.

More to explorer

PopeWatch: Extraordinary

From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:     Addressing the crisis of dwindling

The Bringer of Peace

  Something for the weekend.  The hundredth anniversary of the armistice ending World War seems to call for Holst’s Venus:  The Bringer


  1. This is not about pedophile priests or child abuse or even abortion. This about subsuming the sovereignty of the Vatican and assuming the mantle of world government by the United Nations, if brute force may be called government.
    Atheism on the march. The U.N. has eradicated every mention of God from their laws and by laws. The Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations infers that man’s freedoms and human rights come from the “state”. As Thomas Jefferson said: “Rights the state gives the state can take away. The history of the United Nations is every bit totalitarian, demanding the power to tax American citizens, the authority to establish an International Court and the the means to raise and keep a standing army. The U.N. got the International Court, but the power to tax American workers and draft people from every country to maintain a standing army is denied.
    Removing the sovereignty of the Vatican will enable the atheists to crush any resistance to their criminal world dominance. Before Bill Clinton left the White House, he gave the Statue of Liberty to the U.N.. American people rose up and demanded that the Statue of Liberty be kept in America to whom it is given. (Clinton also wrote Executive Orders that put all free lands and water ways under the express control of the chief executive. Hilary Clinton failed to get elected. The free lands and waterways belong to the free people of American see: Indwellers). Clinton wanted to become the next head of the U.N. It will not surprise me if Obama is head and chief of this strategy, paving the way for the powerful and hideous Planned Parenthood which has infiltrated the U.N. and through the U.N. education at our public schools. The world’s population will be decimated through the United Nations Population Control.
    The Vatican is the only sovereignty who has the truth and will not back down from facing this bloody dragon.
    The Vatican is the Sacred City-State of the Catholic Church and holds forth the power of freedom through TRUTH for all human beings in their image and likeness of our Creator, free will and intellect, immortality and the dignity of their humanity. The Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

  2. The United nations has the power to drag the Vatican into its International Court as it has threatened to in the past. Using the above mentioned accusations and inciting to raise a mob mentality, one of Alinsky’s trademarks, the Vatican may well have to defend its status as a sovereign state among the nations of the world, using the principle of separation of church and state to defend its very existence as a sovereign state.
    The above investigative reporting may well bring the United Nations into the International Court.

  3. I don’t see the UN as agnostic on the question of God, nor even a-theist, but it shows it self to be actively anti-God. The declaration of human rights is the weapon used by the UN to challenge the sovereignty of the Church over its own laws and articles of faith.
    Each signer of the declaration did so according to their own definition and understanding of what we have come to define as “natural” human rights. As we see today the meanings have been expanded and re-focused beyond what what meant all those years ago when the Church signed on. Perhaps there never really was agreement as to meaning, beyond just hope for a kinder gentler world.
    Mr. McClarey’s E. Burke would edify us on this if he were alive today

  4. Anzlyne

    The Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, who was one of the principle draughtsmen of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, explained his aspirations: “Thus it is that men possessing quite different, even opposite metaphysical or religious outlooks, can converge, not by virtue of any identity of doctrine, but by virtue of an analogical similitude in practical principles, toward the same practical conclusions, and can share in the same practical secular faith, provided that they similarly revere, perhaps for quite diverse reasons, truth and intelligence, human dignity, freedom, brotherly love, and the absolute value of moral good.” Plainly, that proviso has not been realised.

  5. Great point Michael PS. And I do agree with Maritain’s express hope! As you say that understanding has not yet been realized
    I am guessing that worldly power sought through the UN is the big stumbling block to the heaven on earth outlined in that hopeful paragraph you quoted. The Truth gets lost in the scuffle for authority and consequently political social correctness reigns.

  6. Explaining me: that phrase “heaven on earth” I didn’t mean actual heaven, but the sort of secular coexist of faith with good reason that he described. …Secular.
    I think he describes a hope, as JP2 did, that Faith and Reason could cooperate together in lifting us . But Faith and Reason- each in custody of human minds and human wills- are still arguing. I wonder if it will always be that way- per omnia saecula saeculorum

  7. Michael PS has rightly pointed out the important role of the great Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain in the philosophical establishing of the United Nations. His influence on such Catholics as Rene Cassin of France and Charles Malik of Lebanon who were among the actual writers of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Magna Carta of the United Nations which now seems to have been put on a back shelf and replaced by the latest ideological issues put forward by the West.

    At the same time, post WWII, we had great thinkers/leaders in Europe, many of whom were Catholic intellectuals who were responsible for the foundations of the EU. Likewise in America Catholic leaders and thinkers were responsible for a great deal of the post WWII peace and prosperity of the country.

    It was really because of all these positive forces etc that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council felt that they could really enter into substantial dialogue with ‘the Modern World’

    Yet by the late 60’s in the UN, in Europe and even in America, something happened-right across the board. I can say it as the beginning of post-modern age, however to describe it further is difficult. All that had been built up and on that solid foundation of “Christian Democracy” was shattered. Pope Paul VI, a great ‘disciple’ of Maritain perhaps symbolized this for us. When he began his ministry that world of Christian democracy was in place. By the end of his ministry, that world was shattered. His last days were spent anguishing over the fate of his own ‘student’ Aldo Moro, kidnapped by the radical leftist Red Guard and found executed in the trunk of a car. That period of real enlightenment was over.

  8. Botolph

    René Cassin was Jewish and a great French jurist. Charles Malik was Lebanese and Greek Orthodox

    Pope Paul VI entertained high hopes for the United Nations, writing in his 1967 encyclical, Populorum Progressio, Such international collaboration among the nations of the world certainly calls for institutions that will promote, coordinate and direct it, until a new juridical order is firmly established and fully ratified. We give willing and wholehearted support to those public organizations that have already joined in promoting the development of nations, and We ardently hope that they will enjoy ever growing authority. As We told the United Nations General Assembly in New York: “Your vocation is to bring not just some peoples but all peoples together as brothers. . . Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a world authority capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political planes?” Few, I fancy, would be as sanguine today.

    As for the EU, you are right, its main architects were all Catholics and all, curiously enough, from marginal German-speaking areas: West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (Rhineland), French Prime Minister Robert Schumann (born in Luxembourg of parents from Lorraine) and Italian Prime Minister Alcide De Gasperi (Trentino Alto Adige). De Gasperi actually sat in the Vienna parliament pre-1914.

    Georges Pompidou (another Catholic) once said of Schumann that he wished his epitaph to be Renovator Imperii Romanorum (and who wouldn’t?)

  9. Michael PS

    Thank you for the correction. Just shows that I have not been gifted with ‘infallibility’ lol I will have to scratch my sources on Cassin and Malik. At least I got the foundations of the EU right lol

    To the point however, your quote from Pope Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio reveals that at least at that time, the ‘end’ of that ‘golden age’ was not yet in his consciousness or that of the Church-yet. We will continue to seek dialogue, there seems to be no doubt about that, however, with whom is a major question, whether it be on the ecumenical front, ‘the world’, ‘the West’, “Islam”? [which grouping etc?] etc. In order to dialogue you need a partner who 1) believes there is at least a possibility of dialogue 2) that there is something-truth-logos-to dialogue about/and or discover 3)that the fruit of the dialogue is ‘light’, ‘clarification’, ‘reconciliation’, ‘truth’, ‘the good’

    While we, the Church, have not fundamentally changed, ‘the world’ etc certainly has.

  10. MPS quotes Jacques Maritain,….. “Thus it is that men possessing quite different, even opposite metaphysical or religious outlooks, can converge, not by virtue of any identity of doctrine, but by virtue of an analogical similitude in practical principles, toward the same practical conclusions, and can share in the same practical secular faith, provided that they similarly revere, perhaps for quite diverse reasons, truth and intelligence, human dignity, freedom, brotherly love, and the absolute value of moral good.” Plainly, that proviso has not been realised.”
    Can the referenced example of “Natura Pura” have a realistic hope of success now or at anytime in the future? The parties to the agreement are not united in Catholicism or even a belief in the supernatural.
    Moreover He told us “My Kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36

  11. Slainte,

    I am not sure if you were only asking Michael PS but I will (also) respond if you don’t mind.

    Natura Pura is an intellectual construct. It does not exist in the real world. There is indeed ‘something’ called Natural Law by which even non-believers have a sense of what is right and wrong which is not up for grabs. My favorite example comes not from Thomas but from Augustine who wrote that even an adulterer knows adultery is wrong when it is committed against him etc-it is on that level, and is a necessary truth to be maintained as we attempt to dialogue with non-believers etc especially in attempting to build a just and good society.

    Over the years however, while maintaining faith in the existence of natural law, I have come to a more ‘Augustinian” view of things which sees mankind in a deep, dark existential ignorance which all but (by no means 100%) prevents people from seeing the truth expressed in natural law and in coming to know that God exists etc. I believe totally what the Church teaches on this. I am not Calvinist, Jansenist, or even Lutheran in this area. I do not believe mankind is depraved but it is greatly ‘screwed up’, broken, divided, compromised-whatever other term fits here-in radical (meaning the need goes right to our roots) need of salvation.
    In short without some amount of ‘grace’ no one will respond to natural law etc

    Did I answer your question?

  12. Hi Botolph,
    You did indeed answer my query; thank you. Botolph….Natural Law is completely ignored by many non-Catholic law schools in the U.S., and I am not certain whether it is even up for discussion in Catholic law schools. Very few lawyers have any clue what it is or even how to ascertain its principles to a certainty. The fact that it exists separately from Revelation makes it that much more challenging to discern.
    I addressed my comment to MPS because he was very helpful in instructing me on the issue of “Natura Pura” and man’s desire for the supernatural. Phillip, MPS and others are engaged in an on-going discussion about Natura Pura, the Enlightenment, liberalism v. Catholicism over at
    “Brace Yourselves: The Dark Enlightenment is Upon Us”….please come over and join in.
    I witnessed first hand man’s fallen nature last night when I blew a tire on a pothole in Manhattan and had to navigate across three lanes of traffic on Third Avenue…no one and I mean no one would give way. So I may be on my way to becoming an Augustinean as well! : )

  13. Slainte,

    Thanks for the response. I will take a look at the other series on the Dark Enlightenment, etc.

    What I gave as a response was a synthesis of my faith, theology and years of experience lol While always loving Augustine I think I was very Thomistic in this area for years-very optomistic about things human etc [it came with Vatican II etc] but experience-both in the Church: seeing the knowing dissent of ‘the spirit of VII crowd’, even the disunity among mainline Catholics, and then of course the drastic changes in world society since the 60’s has brought me back to Augustine (Catholic version of him-there are other versions: i.e. Calvin, Jansen, Luther)

    I also came to a realization how many Thomists, such as Suarez-who influenced countless scholars etc are not faithful to Thomas-just one more nail in my optimism and naivete

    Glad it helped

  14. Botolph,
    FYI…I want you to be right. As much as I question the faith and continue to ruminate upon it, I want good people like you to keep defending it. I believe in Catholicism and Our Lord with every fibre of my being. And I am very grateful that you and others are here to respond to queries.
    A few days ago I posted portions of Bishop Conley’s response to the Rolling Stone article and its cover on Pope Francis. I think Bishop Conley understands the faith in a way that might resonate with you.
    Here is the repost.
    “First Things” has just published a piece by Nebraska Bishop James Conley entitled “Our Pop Culture Moment” in response to Marc Binelli’s profile of Pope Francis in February’s “Rolling Stone” magazine. . Bishop Conley writes,
    “….Binelli’s essay….was effective….The profile….re-crafted Francis’ public image in the annals of popular culture. He has become a rock star. But if we understand that…. we have a good chance of using the Church’s pop culture moment, instead of becoming its victim.”
    “…..Rolling Stone and its collaborators are working to hijack the papacy of a loyal, though often unconventional, son of the Church.”
    “The reason is simple. Sexual and social libertines have little interest in discrediting Christianity. They’re far more interested in refashioning it—in claiming Christ, and his vicar, as their supporters. The secularist social agenda is more palatable to impressionable young people if it complements, rather than competes with, the residual Christianity of their families. The enemy has no interest in eradicating Christianity if he can sublimate it to his own purposes.”
    “The greatest trick of the devil isn’t convincing the world he doesn’t exist—it’s convincing the world that Jesus Christ is the champion of his causes.”
    “Well-formed Catholics know that Pope Francis isn’t breaking new theological ground. His work on economics, for example, is in continuity with a point being made about justice since at least Leo XIII. His call for broader participation by laity, particularly women, was a point of great importance to Benedict XVI. And his expressions of charity and solidarity towards those afflicted with same-sex attraction is rooted in the Church’s best tradition. But the media has driven a wedge between Francis and his predecessors by focusing less on substance than method.”
    “…..That’s why last week on the Church’s World Day for Communications, Pope Francis remarked that “if a choice has to be made between a bruised Church which goes out to the streets and a Church suffering from self-absorption, I certainly prefer the first. Those ‘streets’ are the world where people live and where they can be reached, both effectively and affectively.”
    “The preference of the Holy Father, like the preference of Jesus Christ himself, is to engage the world, to run the risk that journalists like Binelli will write unfounded, agenda-driven profiles.”
    “Because, as Pope Benedict XVI said in 2013, by “patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence,” we can introduce the world to Jesus Christ….”

    Bishop James Conley is to be commended for his defense of Pope Francis. A certain late Archbishop of New York “Dagger John Hughes” would no doubt be proud of his brother Bishop from Nebraska.

  15. Thanks Slainte

    I too agree with Bishop Conley. I would put it in a simpler way however—— Satan even quotes Scripture for his own purposes———–we don’t throw out or yell and scream about Scripture do we :-)?

  16. Universal rights (independent of “civil” rights recognized by established government) are pendant universal good (God). if there is not agreement on what is good, who has authority to “declare” universal human rights?
    God reveals what is good, not what is current and politically correct but that which is and endures… in the book of nature, in the Scriptures and through the Church.. “natural” rights definition is of course the area that the anti-God organization feels free to mess with. The ex nihilo declaration goes beyond simply life liberty and pursuit of happiness and adds prescriptions and proscriptions for human behavior that are way beyond the moral authority of the UN. This challenge of the UN to the Church is

  17. Botolph, Anzlyne, slainte, and Michael Paterson-Seymour.

    I am reading your very excellent conversation and the many threads to which I wish to respond. The one constant is this: Jesus said: “Love God with your whole heart, your whole mind, your whole strength and your neighbor as yourself.” The whole law and the prophets.
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations is an expression of the second part of the whole law and the prophets, the natural law the brotherly love law. As it became more separated from the whole law it became useless or useful only to overturn the whole law and the prophets.
    The whole law and the prophets respects the transcendent part of man, the rational, immortal soul, acknowledges God our Creator, and acknowledges man need for God. Without acknowledging man’s need for God, the practice of religion, and freedom of religion, has become a point of ridicule, derision, and contempt.
    God Himself has become a focus for blasphemy. These sins of human sacrifice and sodomy are aimed at inciting God to wrath. Satan tells souls that they need to do this or that knowing full well that death will consume the sinner.
    The United Nations has plagiarized the law of God and violated the copyright which is made to protect the original script.
    “I don’t see the UN as agnostic on the question of God, nor even a-theist, but it shows it self to be actively anti-God. The declaration of human rights is the weapon used by the UN to challenge the sovereignty of the Church over its own laws and articles of faith.”
    In my opinion, the U.N. is neither agnostic nor atheist. The U.N. is anti-God. The U.N. despises God and uses man’s atheism, agnosticism and ignorance as a cudgel to increase its power. Like Saul Alinsky, the U.N. is using man’s fallen nature to subdue man.
    “The declaration of human rights is the weapon used by the UN to challenge the sovereignty of the Church over its own laws and articles of faith.”
    Separation of church and state as expressed by John Henry Cardinal Newman is the screen through which this U.N. challenge must be seen. The Declaration of Human Rights can have no effect over the Church. The Catholic Church’s reply to this challenge, actually accusation is simply: “Child abusers and those who protected them are going to hell.” Can the U.N. provide a better penalty? I think not.

  18. “Like Saul Alinsky, the U.N. is using man’s fallen nature to subdue man.” True.

    and that also seems to be the tactic of the day from our president-

  19. This is sobering.

    We walk around every day living our lives in pretty much complete ignorance to the very real and possible aftereffects of current events. The world is not a world of peace and it hates us. We will NOT be allowed to live in dissent to the culture and our God-given rights will not be respect. Now is the time to stand up or else we will be locked down.

  20. Anzlyne: “if there is not agreement on what is good, who has authority to “declare” universal human rights? ”
    “WHO is like unto God?”
    I read your comment yesterday. It did not sink in until this morning. Your statement sums up the entire situation. The U.N. is usurping the Supreme Sovereign Being’s authentic authority. The U.N. can only be described as a fraud. Having embraced fraudulent marriage and fraudulent human sacrifice, the U.N. itself has become a fraud. Notice, the U.N. has not embraced an individual human being, but a group, Archbishop Sheen’s definition of communism. Only in embracing God can an institution embrace an individual human being.

  21. The U.N. is, in my opinion, an enemy to the Church, to Israel, to the United States of America, and to human freedom everywhere. It is embryonic world-wide governance. That seems the only embryo is cares to protect. It actively seeks the disarming of individual citizens of member states and central control of energy resources. I would be unsurprised to find population control at the bottom of U.N. policy on so-called climate change. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change elicited the following response, albeit mild in my view:
    In 2005, the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs produced a report on the economics of climate change. It commented on the IPCC process:
    We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC’s emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. I post a link to this document for those who might read the entire tome:
    I have always had a low opinion of the U.N. I can hear the voice of my dear, although Democrat and factually mistaken, Aunt M. saying, “You always were a Bircher, Billy”.

  22. Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State signed on to the the Small Arms Treaty with the U. N. to circumvent the pro-gun, Second Amendment vote in America, using international law to reduce America to a satellite nation of the U.N.
    This is seriously treason.
    Now, Mrs. Ben Ghazi is looking to run for dog catcher in Washington, D.C. in 2016

  23. I really wonder what we can do about all of the above comments! We need to
    have a plan and certainly NOT let Ms. Clinton become our next mess. I want
    everyone to realize and remember that many many Catholics helped get
    Obama elected. Being a democrat was more important than being a moral
    Catholic. I did not even hear one sermon on the subject and I am deeply

    I share your concern.
    Talking to many individuals at the grocery store, too many simply voted the party of their parents and grandparents, so help me. without giving a thought to what they were electing. Times have changed with the culture of death, sodomy, vice and disregard for the human being, the person and his soul. Only the newly conceived innocence of the human person can bring us Justice, and with Justice, freedom. As Botolph said, he wants to belong to the party of the Lamb. I will settle for TRUTH, Justice and the American Way in public life. The party of TRUTH. How does that sound?

  25. The party of Truth sounds much better than the party of LIES. The current President has acted as an elected misleader of a party for which ends justify means. Benghazi and the healthcare deception come easily to mind. We can and must identify the obvious externals without judging the interior dispositions. We can understand the use of mental reservation in extreme cases but must not tolerate deception as a basis of governance. I think vast numbers of people are insensitive to such fine distinctions. The groundwork of relativism was laid years ago. The Father of Lies has deceived an entire generation. Life is not life, just a blob of matter. Sodomy is a basis of marriage. Utopia is just an election away. Forget the Guy in the Sky, we’ll have our Heaven on earth. An earlier generation would find now commonplace attitudes outrageous and inane. Our optimism struggles for air.

Comments are closed.