1. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23648
    19 Apr '08 15:331 edit
    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL AND INDIVISIBLE

    VATICAN CITY, 18 APR 2008 (VIS) - This morning, the Pope visited the New York headquarters of the United Nations Organisation where, on his arrival, he was welcomed by Ban Ki-moon, U.N. secretary general, and Srgjan Kerim, current president of the General Assembly.

    Benedict XVI is the third Pontiff to address the U.N. General Assembly. Pope Paul VI did so on 4 October 1965, and John Paul II on two occasions: 2 October 1979 and 5 October 1995.

    Following a private meeting with the secretary general, the Holy Father went to the General Assembly where he addressed representatives of the 192 member States.


    Excerpts from the Holy Father's address are given below:


    "Through the United Nations, States have established universal objectives which, even if they do not coincide with the total common good of the human family, undoubtedly represent a fundamental part of that good. The founding principles of the Organisation - the desire for peace, the quest for justice, respect for the dignity of the person, humanitarian co-operation and assistance - express the just aspirations of the human spirit, and constitute the ideals which should underpin international relations. ... The United Nations embodies the aspiration for a 'greater degree of international ordering', inspired and governed by the principle of subsidiarity, and therefore capable of responding to the demands of the human family through binding international rules and through structures capable of harmonising the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of peoples. This is all the more necessary at a time when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world's problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.

    "Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalisation. In the context of international relations, it is necessary to recognise the higher role played by rules and structures that are intrinsically ordered to promote the common good, and therefore to safeguard human freedom. These regulations do not limit freedom. On the contrary, they promote it when they prohibit behaviour and actions which work against the common good, curb its effective exercise and hence compromise the dignity of every human person".

    "Here our thoughts turn also to the way the results of scientific research and technological advances have sometimes been applied. Notwithstanding the enormous benefits that humanity can gain, some instances of this represent a clear violation of the order of creation, to the point where not only is the sacred character of life contradicted, but the human person and the family are robbed of their natural identity. Likewise, international action to preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation. This never requires a choice to be made between science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical imperatives.

    "Recognition of the unity of the human family, and attention to the innate dignity of every man and woman, today find renewed emphasis in the principle of the responsibility to protect. ... Every State has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made. If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments. The action of the international community and its institutions, provided that it respects the principles undergirding the international order, should never be interpreted as an unwarranted imposition or a limitation of sovereignty".

    "The principle of 'responsibility to protect' was considered by the ancient 'ius gentium' as the foundation of every action taken by those in government with regard to the governed. ... Now, as then, this principle has to invoke the idea of the person as image of the Creator, the desire for the absolute and the essence of freedom. The founding of the United Nations, as we know, coincided with the profound upheavals that humanity experienced when reference to the meaning of transcendence and natural reason was abandoned, and in consequence, freedom and human dignity were grossly violated. ... When faced with new and insistent challenges, it is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to determining 'common ground', minimal in content and weak in its effect.

    "This reference to human dignity, which is the foundation and goal of the responsibility to protect, leads us to the theme we are specifically focusing upon this year, which marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ... Human rights are increasingly being presented as the common language and the ethical substratum of international relations. At the same time, the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights all serve as guarantees safeguarding human dignity. It is evident, though, that the rights recognised and expounded in the Declaration apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person, who remains the high-point of God's creative design for the world and for history. They are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilisations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks".

    "The life of the community, both domestically and internationally, clearly demonstrates that respect for rights, and the guarantees that follow from them, are measures of the common good that serve to evaluate the relationship between justice and injustice, development and poverty, security and conflict. ... The merit of the Universal Declaration is that it has enabled different cultures, juridical expressions and institutional models to converge around a fundamental nucleus of values, and hence of rights. Today, though, efforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests".

    "Experience shows that legality often prevails over justice when the insistence upon rights makes them appear as the exclusive result of legislative enactments or normative decisions taken by the various agencies of those in power. When presented purely in terms of legality, rights risk becoming weak propositions divorced from the ethical and rational dimension which is their foundation and their goal. The Universal Declaration, rather, has reinforced the conviction that respect for human rights is principally rooted in unchanging justice, on which the binding force of international proclamations is also based. This aspect is often overlooked when the attempt is made to deprive rights of their true function in the name of a narrowly utilitarian perspective. Since rights and the resulting duties follow naturally from human interaction, it is easy to forget that they are the fruit of a commonly held sense of justice built primarily upon solidarity among the members of society, and hence valid at all times and for all peoples".

    "As history proceeds, new situations arise, and the attempt is made to link them to new rights. Discernment, that is, the capacity to distinguish good from evil, becomes even more essential in the context of demands that concern the very lives and conduct of persons, communities and peoples".

    "Discernment, then, shows that entrusting exclusively to individual States, with their laws and institutions, the final responsibility to meet the aspirations of persons, communities and entire peoples, can sometimes have consequences that exclude the possibility of a social order respectful of the dignity and rights of the person. On the other hand, a vision of life firmly anchored in the religious dimension can help to achieve this, since recognition of the transcendent value of every man and woman favours conversion of heart, which then leads to a commitment to resist violence, terrorism and war, and to promote justice and peace. This also provides the proper context for the inter-religious dialogue that the United Nations is called to support, just as it supports dialogue in other areas of human activity".

    "Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian - a vision that brings out the unity of the person while clearly distinguishing between the dimension of the citizen and that of the believer. ... It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves - their faith - in order...
  2. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    23 Apr '08 03:044 edits
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Every State has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made. If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments.
    Do you think the systematic child abuse wrought by Catholic priests and bishops over the past few decades in the United States is an example of a grave and sustained violation of human rights?

    Do you think United Nations must intervene since criminal jurisdictions in the United States have as a matter of policy failed to protect these children?
  3. Joined
    04 Oct '06
    Moves
    11845
    23 Apr '08 16:05
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Do you think the systematic child abuse wrought by Catholic priests and bishops over the past few decades in the United States is an example of a grave and sustained violation of human rights?

    Do you think United Nations must intervene since criminal jurisdictions in the United States have as a matter of policy failed to protect these children?
    Better yet, shouldn't the UN intervene with the church/Vatican harboring and employing these criminals?
  4. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    23 Apr '08 16:18
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL AND INDIVISIBLE

    VATICAN CITY, 18 APR 2008 (VIS) - This morning, the Pope visited the New York headquarters of the United Nations Organisation where, on his arrival, he was welcomed by Ban Ki-moon, U.N. secretary general, and Srgjan Kerim, current president of the General Assembly.

    Benedict XVI is the third Pontiff to addres ...[text shortened]... d have to suppress a part of themselves - their faith - in order...
    FAIL
  5. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    23 Apr '08 16:44
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Do you think the systematic child abuse wrought by Catholic priests and bishops over the past few decades in the United States is an example of a grave and sustained violation of human rights?

    Do you think United Nations must intervene since criminal jurisdictions in the United States have as a matter of policy failed to protect these children?
    One might think that the church is a safe haven for somebody.

    How? Allow a separate and foreign politically and militarily supplied organisation intervene in the sovereign judicial system of the united states?

    It would be like passing a law that says someone from big brother is going to come over to your house and use it as if it were his own.
Back to Top