Friday, May 30, 2014

EU Commission Vetos 'One of Us' Citizen's Initiative


The European Commission has shown its utter distain for genuine democracy in its decision to ignore the pro-life “One of Us” initiative signed by over 1.7 million citizens from 20 member states submitted in accordance with the requirements of the European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECI). The ECI mechanism approved under the Lisbon Treaty is the EU response to accusations that the entire EU project is undemocratic and out of touch with its citizens. An ECI is in fact an invitation to the European Commission to propose legislation on matters where the EU has competence to legislate and must be backed by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least 7 out of the 28 member states.
The “One of Us” initiative exceeded the requirement of 1 million signatories obtaining 1.7 million signatures from 20 member states, the largest ECI in the history of the European Union.
 
Although the European Commission is under no obligation to follow requests made through an ECI, it makes a mockery of the entire process and highlights the undemocratic nature of the EU institutions by rejecting a democratically backed request that is in line with European law and imposing its own agenda, its own political will.

The actual Commission decision can be found on this link and a comment issued by the European Centre for law and Justice is reprinted below.

THE COMMISSION VETOS THE CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE "ONE OF US"

A decision contrary to ethical and democratic requirements

On 28th May, the last day in office, the former “Barroso Commission” vetoed the Citizens’ Initiative “UN DE NOUS / ONE OF US”, the largest petition in the history of European Institutions. This initiative, formally supported by two million people in Europe, is the largest petition in European history. It demands that Brussels no longer finances any practice that destroys human life before birth.
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) is a participative democracy mechanism created by the Treaty of Lisbon through which a million citizens can take the initiative of introducing a legislative proposal in the European institutions. 

The ONE OF US Committee expresses its deep disappointment towards a deaf Commission which today makes a decision contrary to ethical and democratic requirements. While each initiative draft is controlled upstream by the Commission before being open to signature, the Barroso Commission claims to possess the right of veto downstream, against initiatives having yet successfully obtained the required popular support. Such veto power is illegitimate and anti-democratic since politically, it is the European Legislature that may give a verdict on the content of the Initiative, and not the Commission, otherwise, the ECI mechanism would be meaningless.

An Unjustified VETO which does not even take the purpose of the request into account: The Commission’s response is hypocritical and disdainful as it pretends to not understand the purpose of the demand and comprises of thirty pages of self satisfaction of its own policy. The Commission wishes to continue financing non ethical and outdated biotechnological practices, as well as abortion in developing countries including countries where this is prohibited by criminal law.
An Unjustifiable VETO which flouts the democratic procedure: The Commission, rather than noticing the Initiative’s success and transmitting it to the European Parliament and Council of Europe has abused its power of formal control to exercise a judgement on the political opportunity of “One of Us” and to block this procedure. The Commission is therefore trying to defend a privilege of initiative, being the only institution able to initiate legal procedures up upon the creation of the ECI mechanism. The Commission therefore made this mechanism a travesty while the deputies, on the contrary, wanted it to be a real instrument of participative democracy.  The Commission thus testifies to the absence of a democratic culture.

For the “ONE OF US” Citizens’ Committee, the procedure is not over: on one hand, the Commission’s decision is likely to be appealed before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg – which acknowledges respect for human life from conception - and on the other hand, the new Parliament will audition the next Commission, allowing it to replace the respect of the Citizens’ Initiative in the heart of debates, and asks European Institutions to be more ethical and democratic.


Grégor PUPPINCK
Directeur
European Centre for Law and Justice
4, Quai Koch
67000 Strasbourg, France
Phone : + 33 (0)3 88 24 94 40 Fax     : + 33 (0)3 88 24 94 47
Website

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Global Plan to improve the health of newborn babies approved by the World Health Assembly

-->
GENEVA, Switzerland — The World Health Assembly (WHA) last Saturday adopted a global plan to improve the health of newborn babies.  “Every newborn: An action plan to end preventable deaths” aims to reduce high rates of neonatal mortality in large parts of the world.

The action plan explains that an estimated 2.9 million children die every year within the first month after birth, and 2.6 million babies are stillborn and that the decline of neonatal mortality has been slower than either under-five mortality or maternal mortality.

What could be nobler than an international commitment to ensuring that all newborn babies remain healthy and will have access to every possible health care they may need? It is a pity that in espousing this excellent initiative the plan fails to take cognizance of the preborn and also includes an unacceptable agenda. 

Sadly some of the recommended actions in the document violate parental rights and go against cultural and religious values recognized in international law.
It is regrettable that, in paragraph 90, there is an exclusive focus on promoting ‘[t]argeted programmes in and out of school', together with access to, and use of, modern contraceptive methods.
There is also an exclusive emphasis on so-called “comprehensive sexual education”. The sad fact, however, is that the approach that is popularly known as “comprehensive sexual education” is very far from such. This methodology fails to include other factors that are essential to enable young people to make such life-changing decisions, namely, values formation aimed at helping young people to develop a deep sense of their own unique worth and dignity as well as the capacity to respect themselves and others by abstaining from sexual relationships before marriage and by observing mutual and permanent fidelity within marriage, both of which are effective and evidence-based means to prevent adolescent pregnancy.

It should also be noted that concern has been expressed by parents and family organisations throughout Europe in reaction to the ‘Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe’ published in 2010 by the WHO Regional Office for Europe and the BZgA organization, since it promotes educational messages that are not age appropriate and because it completely ignores the role of the family in sexual education, despite the central role of the family in transmitting values and shaping responsible inter-personal behaviour.

These issues are not the only or even the most serious issues when it becomes clear that the radical agenda can also be found in the footnotes.
Footnote 2 of paragraph 37 cites a document entitled, ‘Preventing Early Pregnancy and Poor Reproductive Outcomes Among Adolescents in Developing Countries’ (WHO 2011).
This document in its section Recommendations for Action highlights the following under the banner of strong recommendations:
• Ensure that laws and policies enable adolescents to obtain safe abortion services.
• Enable adolescents to obtain safe abortion services by informing them and other stakeholders about:
• the dangers of unsafe methods of interrupting a pregnancy;
• the safe abortion services that are legally available; and
• where and under what circumstances these services can be obtained legally.
• Identify and overcome barriers to the provision of safe abortion services to adolescents.
• Ensure access to post-abortion by adolescents care as a life-saving medical intervention, whether or not the abortion or attempted abortion was legal.
• Ensure that adolescents who have had abortions can obtain post-abortion contraceptive information and services, whether or not the abortion was legal.

Needless to say none of this has anything to do with newborn health.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Midwife lodges legal challenge against a Swedish County Council for denial of her right to freedom of conscience and religion on abortion.

-->
Ruth Nordstrom of Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers, reports that a lawsuit has been filed against the Swedish Government on the right to freedom of conscience and religion for a midwife who has been refused employment because of her conscientious objection to abortion.
Jönköping County Council's decisions constitute an interference with the exercise of Mrs Ellinor Grimmarks right to freedom of conscience and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, says Ruth Nordstrom, Legal Counsel and President of Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers. – The County Council has supported the withdrawals of offered job positions as a midwife at three different hospitals, and set up an obligation to perform abortions as a condition for employment as a midwife. This is a requirement that puts persons of a certain religion or other beliefs in a discriminatory position. The filed lawsuit argues in favour of midwife Ellinor Grimmark and claims that the District Court determines that the County Council acted wrongly by refusing Mrs Grimmark the promised jobs and claims compensation for damages by 80 000 SEK and compensation for discrimination by 60 000 SEK.

Emeritus Professor of Labour Law at Lund University, Mr. Reinhold Fahlbeck, Senior Legal Counsel at Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers, points out that “if this case is brought to the European Court of Human Rights, Sweden will lose. There is a proper consensus among the Council of Europe Member States to allow freedom of conscience for health care workers regarding abortion and euthanasia and the scope for national deviations is very small in this case.

Roger Kiska, Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom Europe, says "in a civil society, in this day and age, it is shocking that we are denying one of the most fundamental of human rights, the right to conscience. A society has truly lost its way when it excludes someone from the healthcare profession merely because they want to bring human life into the world rather than destroying it. We are confident that the Swedish courts will rule in Mrs. Grimmark's favour, in favour of decency, and in favour of human rights."

Contact
For more information, please contact:
Legal Counsel Ruth Nordstrom
President, Scandinavian Human Rights Lawyers.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Politicians reap what they sow


There has been much political analysis on the fallout from the Local and European elections in Ireland and the resignation of the Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore. Needless to say neither the media nor the political parties seem to understand that it is not only economic issues that influence voters decisions when they come to cast their votes.

The Government parties and Fine Gael, in particular, don’t seem to understand that promises matter and that their high-handed approach to the introduction of abortion legislation is anathema to a huge segment of the electorate. There are very few issues that will bring 60,000 to the streets in public protest but the message went unheeded.  Public opinion was rejected in a most arrogant manner and the TD’s who decided to vote with their consciences were treated shabbily.

Do they think we have short memories, that we have forgotten?

The Government then promised in the wake of the introduction of the anti life legislation that they would hold a referendum in 2015 on so called ‘same sex marriage’ and in the meantime would introduce unacceptable family legislation. They would do well to look across the Irish Sea and consider what has happened to the Government parties there in the wake of the same sex marriage legislation. If they are wise they will quietly drop the proposals and leave our Constitution alone.

In what was a huge slap in the face to the Catholic population of Ireland Tanaiste and Labour leader Eamonn Gilmore arbitrarily shut down the Irish Embassy to the Holy See, supposedly to save government expenditure. Who did he think he was kidding?

In the lead up to the recent election the attempt to play the Catholic card by inviting Pope Francis to come to Ireland and reopening the Vatican Embassy was seen for what it was, a cynical attempt to win back those who had been antognised by the earlier anti Catholic actions.

Did they really think they could treat the electorate in this way and escape scot free?
There is no doubt in my mind that the government parties are responsible for their own demise, they have been ‘hoist with their own petard’.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Maternal and Child Health: First 1000 Days, Conception to Age 2.


GENEVA, Switzerland.
The World health Assembly (WHA), the annual General meeting of the World Health Organization, takes place this week in Geneva. 
The WHA is being attended by a number of pro-life organizations and individuals to monitor the discussions and resolutions surrounding the post 2015 agenda, on issues such as reproductive health and the acceleration of strategies to attain the health related Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s), in the lead in to development of the new Sustainable Development Goals, or SDG’s.
MCCL GO has this year published a brochure on the first 1000 days of the life of a baby, from conception, the crucial development period in the life of every human being stretching from conception until 2 years of age.
The text of the MCCL GO press release follows 
MCCL GO highlights first 1,000 days of life at World Health Assembly
Maternal, child health at stake during critical period, research shows

The first 1,000 days in the life of a human being—from conception to the second birthday—are crucial to the health and prosperity of both mother and child, according to a new document released this week at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland.  It was produced by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO), a U.N.-accredited non-governmental organization.

“A wealth of research has demonstrated how important this 1,000-day window of time is,” stated Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of MCCL GO.  “Mothers and babies need quality health care throughout pregnancy, childbirth and the two years after.  This must be prioritized in the post-2015 development agenda.”

This week’s 67th annual WHA is a gathering of the U.N.’s World Health Organization, including delegations from all member states.  This year’s meeting will include consideration of an action plan to reduce newborn deaths.

An estimated 2.9 million children died within the first month of life in 2012.  Many newborn deaths can be prevented by improving the quality of care during labor, childbirth and the days following birth, including essential newborn care, explains MCCL GO’s new document, “1 to 1,000: How to ensure the health and flourishing of women, children, and society.”

The brochure notes that prenatal care and nutrition greatly affect the life of a child.  Malnutrition during pregnancy can hinder development of a child’s brain and immune system, inhibiting the child’s ability to learn and making her more susceptible to disease.

“Maternal and child health are intimately connected,” said Fischbach.  “Maternal mortality and morbidity remain a serious problem in large parts of the world.  We can save the lives of both pregnant women and their babies by providing the care that they need, including skilled birth attendants, emergency obstetric care, sanitation and clean water.”

The brochure also describes the importance of early childhood, when suboptimum breastfeeding leads to an estimated 800,000 deaths each year, and it calls for respect and protection for women during pregnancy and motherhood, when they may be uniquely vulnerable to the threat of violence and abuse.

“The first 1,000 days after conception are so critical in so many ways, not just for women and children, but for society as a whole,” Fischbach explained.  “Good care throughout this period leads to healthier, better-educated and more-productive adults, increasing economic prosperity.”

MCCL GO calls on the WHA to prioritize the 1,000-day continuum of care for mothers and babies.  “It is absolutely essential to sustainable development,” Fischbach concluded.

MCCL GO’s brochure “1 to 1,000” is available in English, French and Spanish in the Resources section at the MCCL GO website, www.mccl-go.org.

MCCL GO is a pro-life NGO global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund with one goal: to save as many innocent lives as possible from the destruction of abortion. Learn more at www.mccl-go.org.

Monday, May 19, 2014

‘Christian Citizenship and the Local Council and European Parliamentary Elections in Northern Ireland’


Bishop Noel Treanor, Bishop of Down & Connor, responding to requests from a number of people that they would welcome some guidance in the formation a sincere Christian conscience in the run-up to the forthcoming elections, has responded by issuing a pastoral reflection. Whilst the pastoral reflection is primarily aimed at Northern Ireland it is equally relevant for the entire island of Ireland and throughout the whole of Europe.
Bishop Treanor’s pastoral reflection is particularly welcome this week, the week of the Local and European elections, and it should be widely disseminated. The full text is set out below and it can be found on this link. 
Pope Francis recently reminded us in The Joy of the Gospel, that there is need for a ‘greater [presence] of Christian values in the social, political and economic sectors’ and ‘a real commitment to applying the Gospel to the transformation of society’ (n. 102). On Thursday of this week, 22nd May 2014, the Local Council and European Parliamentary elections for Northern Ireland will be held on the same day. This is an important opportunity for each of us as Christians and as citizens to influence the values that will shape future public policy at both local and European level.

How we vote is ultimately a matter of personal conscience. As with every act that has moral consequences, we are called to inform our conscience. This means weighing up the position of each candidate and political party in the forthcoming elections and deciding how, in exercising our Christian responsibility to vote, we can maximise the common good. With many issues, this is a matter of legitimate technical debate and sincere political difference. With other issues, however, such as the right to life of every innocent person from conception to natural death, the values at stake are so fundamental that they can never be undermined.
 
As a Pastor, I have been struck by how many people have said to me recently, and I know to other priests and clergy as well, that they would welcome some guidance in forming a sincere Christian conscience in the run-up to the forthcoming elections. It is a welcome sign of normality and progress that many citizens are engaging conscientiously and decisively with social and moral issues in Northern Ireland elections, beyond the traditional polarities of the Constitutional question.

In offering some guidance, Catholic Social teaching, based on respect for the inherent dignity and equality of every person, and emphasizing our responsibility as Christians to promote the common good, offers four principles that have particular significance in the forthcoming local and European elections in Northern Ireland. These are:

The right to life. There is no more fundamental human right than the right to life. Society has a duty to ensure such a fundamental right is protected for all, but especially for those who are most vulnerable and least able to protect this right for themselves. Recently, the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland announced his intention to introduce a bill to the Assembly that will significantly extend the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. In Dáil Éireann last July, legislation was introduced that made the direct and intentional killing of the unborn child lawful in Ireland. With great courage, some public representatives exercised their right to freedom of conscience on this issue of fundamental human rights and voted against the enforced policy of their party, which was to support abortion. While local Councils and the European Parliament have no direct responsibility for the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, the influence of local Councillors and MEP’s on our understanding of public morality and its relationship to law and policy, is significant. It is important for those who believe in the equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child during pregnancy, and who believe that the direct and intentional killing of an innocent person can never be morally justified, to establish the position of each individual candidate on this fundamental moral issue.

Upholding the special value of marriage between a woman and man as the foundation of the family. As Christians we believe every person is equal in the sight of God and should always be treated with love, care, dignity and respect. Religious and non-religious people alike have long acknowledged and know from their experience that the family, based on the marriage of a woman and a man, is the best and ideal place for children. As Pope Francis stated recently, “we must reaffirm the right of children to grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity” (16 April 2014). It is a fact of nature that same-sex unions are fundamentally and objectively different from the complementary sexual union of a woman and a man which is of itself naturally open to life. The position of a particular candidate on this issue is an important consideration for all citizens. This is not just a religious issue. It is about upholding marriage between a woman and man as the fundamental unit of society, open to the possibility of children, an institution written into the very grammar of nature itself. It is also important for politicians to recognise that this issue is not only about ensuring Churches and faith communities are not obliged to officiate at same-sex ‘marriages’. Respect for religious freedom also includes the right of Churches to teach on this issue in a respectful and sensitive way, to have the ethos of faith-based institutions in employment and other areas protected and of Churches to continue to provide services in preparation for and on-going support of marriage and the family, in a manner which is consistent with their ethos. As experience in other jurisdictions shows, this freedom is very often denied to Churches once ‘same-sex’ marriage legislation is introduced and the rights and freedoms of individual Christians and Churches are quickly, often aggressively undermined.

Promoting justice, social inclusion and concern for the poor. Northern Ireland has the highest rates of child poverty in Ireland and the UK. It has some of the highest rates of working poor, fuel poverty and people on disability allowance. Church representatives were among the first to express concern about the potentially dramatic impact of the proposed welfare reforms on the most vulnerable individuals and families in Northern Ireland. Local politicians deserve credit for ensuring that some important aspects of the proposed welfare reforms will not be implemented here. Having an active concern for the welfare of the poor and most vulnerable is a fundamental Christian duty, deriving from the teaching of the Gospel and enshrined in Catholic Social Teaching. While supporting the principle of helping people out of welfare into work, the forthcoming elections are an opportunity to ask each candidate how they will work to ensure the needs of the poor and most vulnerable in our society are a priority and fully addressed.

Promoting Peace and Reconciliation. Many people express disillusionment with the seeming inability of our local politicians to make progress on a wide range of urgent social, economic and educational issues. This includes the failure to reach agreement on issues that will help us to move to a more peaceful and reconciled future, such as flags, marches and dealing with the past. Elected representatives on Local Councils and in the European Parliament have an important part to play in promoting and funding key initiatives in this area, as well as influencing their political party to work towards agreement and progress on such critical issues in the Assembly. The promotion of peace, mutual understanding and reconciliation has also been at the heart of the European project and the work of the EU Institutions. The European Union is a noble and historic project. It is vital that we participate in the European elections to ensure the EU and its institutions continue to evolve democratically in the face of the massive political, social, economic and ethical challenges it is now facing. Promoting peace and reconciliation is fundamental to the mission and responsibility of every Christian.

As Christians, who by our national citizenship are also citizens of the European Union, we enjoy both the great freedom and the great responsibility of participating conscientiously in the democratic process and voting in the forthcoming elections. We have the freedom and responsibility to make the decision about who to vote for in accordance with a well-formed conscience, before God. It is also important that we commend and encourage all those who take up the noble vocation of politics and who, with a true spirit of public service, work with integrity and commitment for the common good.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

May 15th International Day Of the Family


On the 20th anniversary of the year of the family one has to ask some searching questions. We live in an era when the rights and even the desires of the individual are championed at the expense of the family. It is essential that the United Nations system together with regional institutions such as the European Union are challenged to review policies which have been detrimental to the family.
In the intervening 20 years since the year of the family for example, what if anything has been done to help or assist the family as a unit?
What specific policies have been put in place to support the Family unit?
The answer is of course is that not only has precious little, if anything, been done to support the family, policies which have been adopted are distinctly anti-family, in both the economic and social spheres

Pope John Paul ii in 1983 in his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio set out the basis for a charter of family rights which were subsequently published as follows

Preamble

A. The rights of the person, even though they are expressed as rights of the individual, have a fundamental social dimension which finds an innate and vital expression in the family;

B. the family is based on marriage, that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman which is constituted in the freely contracted and publicly expressed indissoluble bond of matrimony and is open to the transmission of life;

C. marriage is the natural institution to which the mission of transmitting life is exclusively entrusted;

D. the family, a natural society, exists prior to the State or any other community, and possesses inherent rights which are inalienable;

E. the family constitutes, much more than a mere juridical, social and economic unit, a community of love and solidarity, which is uniquely suited to teach and transmit cultural, ethical, social, spiritual and religious values, essential for the development and well-being of its own members and of society.

F. the family is the place where different generations come together and help one another to grow in human wisdom and to harmonize the rights of individuals with other demands of social life;

G. the family and society, which are mutually linked by vital and organic bonds, have a complementary function in the defense and advancement of the good of every person and of humanity;

H. the experience of different cultures throughout history has shown the need for society to recognize and defend the institution of the family;

I. society, and in a particular manner the State and International Organizations, must protect the family through measures of a political, economic, social and juridical character, which aim at consolidating the unity and stability of the family so that it can exercise its specific function;

J. the rights, the fundamental needs, the well-being and the values of the family, even though they are progressively safeguarded in some cases, are often ignored and not rarely undermined by laws, institutions and socio-economic programs;

K. many families are forced to live in situations of poverty which prevent them from carrying out their role with dignity;

L. the Catholic Church, aware that the good of the person, of society and of the Church herself passes by way of the family, has always held it part of her mission to proclaim to all the plan of God instilled in human nature concerning marriage and the family, to promote these two institutions and to defend them against all those who attack them;

M. the Synod of Bishops celebrated in 1980 explicitly recommended that a Charter of the Rights of the Family be drawn up and circulated to all concerned;

the Holy See, having consulted the Bishops' Conferences, now presents this "Charter of the Rights of the Family" and urges all States, International Organizations, and all interested Institutions and persons to promote respect for these rights, and to secure their effective recognition and observance.

Article 1

All persons have the right to the free choice of their state of life and thus to marry and establish a family or to remain single.

a) Every man and every woman, having reached marriageable age and having the necessary capacity, has the right to marry and establish a family without any discrimination whatsoever; legal restrictions to the exercise of this right, whether they be of a permanent or temporary nature, can be introduced only when they are required by grave and objective demands of the institution of marriage itself and its social and public significance; they must respect in all cases the dignity and the fundamental rights of the person.

b) Those who wish to marry and establish a family have the right to expect from society the moral, educational, social and economic conditions which will enable them to exercise their right to marry in all maturity and responsibility.

c) The institutional value of marriage should be upheld by the public authorities; the situation of non-married couples must not be placed on the same level as marriage duly contracted. Article

Article 2 

Marriage cannot be contracted except by free and full consent duly expressed by the spouses.

a) With due respect for the traditional role of the families in certain cultures in guiding the decision of their children, all pressure which would impede the choice of a specific person as spouse is to be avoided.

b) The future spouses have the right to their religious liberty. Therefore to impose as a prior condition for marriage a denial of faith or a profession of faith which is contrary to conscience, constitutes a violation of this right.

c) The spouses, in the natural complementarity which exists between man and woman, enjoy the same dignity and equal rights regarding the marriage.

Article 3

The spouses have the inalienable right to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance with the objective moral order which excludes recourse to contraception, sterilization and abortion.

a) The activities of public authorities and private organizations which attempt in any way to limit the freedom of couples in deciding about their children constitute a grave offense against human dignity and justice.

b) In international relations, economic aid for the advancement of peoples must not be conditioned on acceptance of programs of contraception, sterilization or abortion.

c) The family has a right to assistance by society in the bearing and rearing of children. Those married couples who have a large family have a right to adequate aid and should not be subjected to discrimination.

Article 4

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

a) Abortion is a direct violation of the fundamental right to life of the human being.

b) Respect of the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo.

c) All interventions on the genetic heritage of the human person that are not aimed at correcting anomalies constitute a violation of the right to bodily integrity and contradict the good of the family.

d) Children, both before and after birth, have the right to special protection and assistance, as do their mothers during pregnancy and for a reasonable period of time after childbirth.

e) All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, enjoy the same right to social protection, with a view to their integral personal development.

f) Orphans or children who are deprived of the assistance of their parents or guardians must receive particular protection on the part of society. The State, with regard to foster-care or adoption, must provide legislation which assists suitable families to welcome into their homes children who are in need of permanent or temporary care. This legislation must, at the same time, respect the natural rights of the parents.

g) Children who are handicapped have the right to find in the home and the school an environment suitable to their human development.

Article 5

Since they have conferred life on their children, parents have the original, primary and inalienable right to educate them; hence they must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children.

a) Parents have the right to educate their children in conformity with their moral and religious convictions, taking into account the cultural traditions of the family which favor the good and the dignity of the child; they should also receive from society the necessary aid and assistance to perform their educational role properly.

b) Parents have the right to freely choose schools or other means necessary to educate their children in keeping with their convictions. Public authorities must ensure that public subsidies are so allocated that parents are truly free to exercise this right without incurring unjust burdens. Parents should not have to sustain, directly or indirectly, extra charges which would deny or unjustly limit the exercise of this freedom.

c) Parents have the right to ensure that their children are not compelled to attend classes which are not in agreement with their own moral and religious convictions. In particular, sex education is a basic right of the parents and must always be carried out under their close supervision, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them.

d) The rights of parents are violated when a compulsory system of education is imposed by the State from which all religious formation is excluded.

e) The primary right of parents to educate their children must be upheld in all forms of collaboration between parents, teachers and school authorities, and particularly in forms of participation designed to give citizens a voice in the functioning of schools and in the formulation and implementation of educational policies.

f) The family has the right to expect that the means of social communication will be positive instruments for the building up of society, and will reinforce the fundamental values of the family. At the same time the family has the right to be adequately protected, especially with regard to its youngest members, from the negative effects and misuse of the mass media.

Article 6

The family has the right to exist and to progress as a family.

a) Public authorities must respect and foster the dignity, lawful independence, privacy, integrity and stability of every family.

b) Divorce attacks the very institution of marriage and of the family.

c) The extended family system, where it exists, should be held in esteem and helped to carry out better its traditional role of solidarity and mutual assistance, while at the same time respecting the rights of the nuclear family and the personal dignity of each member.

Article 7

Every family has the right to live freely its own domestic religious life under the guidance of the parents, as well as the right to profess publicly and to propagate the faith, to take part in public worship and in freely chosen programs of religious instruction, without suffering discrimination.

Article 8

The family has the right to exercise its social and political function in the construction of society.

a) Families have the right to form associations with other families and institutions, in order to fulfill the family's role suitably and effectively, as well as to protect the rights, foster the good and represent the interests of the family.

b) On the economic, social, juridical and cultural levels, the rightful role of families and family associations must be recognized in the planning and development of programs which touch on family life.

Article 9

Families have the right to be able to rely on an adequate family policy on the part of public authorities in the juridical, economic, social and fiscal domains, without any discrimination whatsoever.

a) Families have the right to economic conditions which assure them a standard of living appropriate to their dignity and full development. They should not be impeded from acquiring and maintaining private possessions which would favor stable family life; the laws concerning inheritance or transmission of property must respect the needs and rights of family members.

b) Families have the right to measures in the social domain which take into account their needs, especially in the event of the premature death of one or both parents, of the abandonment of one of the spouses, of accident, or sickness or invalidity, in the case of unemployment, or whenever the family has to bear extra burdens on behalf of its members for reasons of old age, physical or mental handicaps or the education of children.

c) The elderly have the right to find within their own family or, when this is not possible, in suitable institutions, an environment which will enable them to live their later years of life in serenity while pursuing those activities which are compatible with their age and which enable them to participate in social life.

d) The rights and necessities of the family, and especially the value of family unity, must be taken into consideration in penal legislation and policy, in such a way that a detainee remains in contact with his or her family and that the family is adequately sustained during the period of detention.

Article 10

Families have a right to a social and economic order in which the organization of work permits the members to live together, and does not hinder the unity, well-being, health and the stability of the family, while offering also the possibility of wholesome recreation.

a) Remuneration for work must be sufficient for establishing and maintaining a family with dignity, either through a suitable salary, called a "family wage," or through other social measures such as family allowances or the remuneration of the work in the home of one of the parents; it should be such that mothers will not be obliged to work outside the home to the detriment of family life and especially of the education of the children.

b) The work of the mother in the home must be recognized and respected because of its value for the family and for society.

Article 11

The family has the right to decent housing, fitting for family life and commensurate to the number of the members, in a physical environment that provides the basic services for the life of the family and the community.

Article 12

The families of migrants have the right to the same protection as that accorded other families.

a) The families of immigrants have the right to respect for their own culture and to receive support and assistance towards their integration into the community to which they contribute.

b) Emigrant workers have the right to see their family united as soon as possible.

c) Refugees have the right to the assistance of public authorities and International Organizations in facilitating the reunion of their families.
  
Sources and References

A. "Rerum novarum", no. 9; "Gaudium et spes", no. 24.
B. "Pacem in terris", Part 1; "Gaudium et spes", nos. 48 and 50;
"Familiaris consortio", no. 19; "Codex Iuris Canonici", no. 1056.
C. "Gaudium et spes", no. 50; "Humanae vitae", no. 12; "Familiaris consortio", no. 28.
D. "Rerum novarum", nos. 9 and 10; "Familiaris consortio", no. 45.
E. "Familiaris consortio", no. 43.
F. "Gaudium et spes", no. 52; "Familiaris consortio", no. 21.
G. "Gaudium et spes", no. 52; "Familiaris consortio", nos. 42 and 45.
I. "Familiaris consortio", no. 45.
J. "Familiaris consortio", nos. 46.
K. "Familiaris consortio", nos. 6 and 77.
L. "Familiaris consortio", nos. 3 and 46.
M. "Familiaris consortio", no. 46.
  
art. 1

"Rerum novarum", no. 9; "Pacem in terris", Part 1; "Gaudium et spes", no. 26; "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", no. 16, 1.
a) "Codes Iuris Canonici", nos. 1058 and 1077; "Universal Declaration", no. 16, 1.
b) "Gaudium et spes", no. 52, "Familiaris consortio", no. 81.
c) "Gaudium et spes", no. 52; "Familiaris consortio", nos. 81 and 82.
  
art. 2
  
"Gaudium et spes", no. 52; "Codex Iuris Canonici", no. 1057; "Universal Declaration", nos. 16, 2.
a) "Gaudium et spes", no. 52.
b) "Dignitatis humanae", no. 6.
c) "Gaudium et spes", no. 49; "Familiaris consortio", nos. 19 and 22; "Codex Iuris Canonici", no. 1135; "Universal Declaration", no. 16, 1.
  
art. 3
  
"Populorum progressio", no. 37; Gaudium et spes, nos. 50 and 87; Humanae vitae, no. 10; Familiaris consortio, nos. 30 and 46.
a) Familiaris consortio, no. 30.
b) Familiaris consortio, no. 30.
c) Gaudium et spes, no. 50.
  
art. 4
  
Gaudium et spes, no. 51; Familiaris consortio, no. 26.
a) Humanae vitae, no. 14; Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, November 18, 1974; Familiaris consortio, no. 30.
b) Pope John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 23, 1982.
d) Universal Declaration, no. 25, 2; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Preamble and no. 4.
e) Universal Declaration, no. 25, 2.
f) Familiaris consortio, no. 41.
g) Familiaris consortio, no. 77.
  
art. 5
  
Divini Illius Magistri, nos. 27-34; Gravissimum educationis, no. 3; Familiaris consortio, no. 36; Codex Iuris Canonici, nos. 793 and 1136.
a) Familiaris consortio, no. 46.
b) Gravissimum educationis, no. 7; Dignitatis humanae, no. 5; Pope John Paul II, Religious Freedom and the Helsinki Final Act
(Letter to the Heads of State of the nations which signed the Helsinki Final Act), 4b; Familiaris consortio, no. 40; Codex Iuris Canonici, no. 797.
c) Dignitatis humanae, no. 5; Familiaris consortio, nos. 37 and 40.
d) Dignitatis humanae, no. 5; Familiaris consortio, no. 40.
e) Familiaris consortio, no. 40; Codex Iuris Canonici, no. 796.
f) Pope Paul VI, Message for the Third World Communications Day, 1969; Familiaris consortio, no. 76.
  
art. 6
 
Familiaris consortio, no. 46.
a) Rerum novarum, no. 10; Familiaris consortio, no. 46; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, no. 17.
b) Gaudium et spes, nos. 48 and 50.
  
art. 7
  
Dignitatis humanae, no. 5; Religious Freedom and the Helsinki Final Act, 4b; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, no. 18.
  
art. 8
  
Familiaris consortio, nos. 44 and 48.
a) Apostolicam actuositatem, no. 11; Familiaris consortio, nos. 46 and 72.
b) Familiaris consortio, nos. 44 and 45.


art. 9
  
Laborem exercens, nos. 10 and 19; Familiaris consortio, no. 45; Universal Declaration, nos. 16, 3 and 22; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, nos. 10, 1.
a) Mater et magistra, Part II; Laborem exercens, no. 10; Familiaris consortio, no. 45; Universal Declaration, nos. 22 and 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 7, a, ii.
b) Familiaris consortio, nos. 45 and 46; Universal Declaration, no. 25, 1; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, nos. 9, 10, 1 and 10, 2.
c) Gaudium et spes, no. 52; Familiaris consortio, no. 27.
  
art. 10
  
Laborem exercens, no. 19; Familiaris consortio, no. 77; Universal Declaration, no. 23, 3.
a) Laborem exercens, no. 19; Familiaris consortio, nos. 23 and 81.
b) Familiaris consortio, no. 23.

art. 11
  
Apostolicam actuositatem, no. 8; Familiaris consortio, no. 81; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, nos. 11, 1.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

The Holy See and the Committee Against Torture


We reported on the Committee Against Torture (CAT) 52nd periodic review in Geneva last week.
It has come to our attention that the Solidarity Center for Law and Justice submitted a shadow report to the Committee (SCLJ) and consequently were permitted to attend the hearings.

Jim Kelly of SCLJ reports as follows
In my opinion, the Holy See delegation did an excellent job presenting its report and providing to the Committee a great deal of information detailing the steps the Vatican has taken;
1)   to investigate allegations of the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests,
2)   to take appropriate actions against those who the Vatican determined to have engaged in such conduct,
3)   to compensate victims,
4)   to institute laws and safeguards at the Vatican City State to prevent such conduct, and to encourage national bishops' conferences to do likewise.
Unsurprisingly, during Tuesday's session, Felice Gaer, a longstanding member of the Committee who is serving as one of two co-rapporteurs responsible for drafting the Committee's final report on the Holy See, engaged Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the leader of the Holy See's delegation, in a line of questioning that was designed to secure an admission by the Holy See that it considers rape or sexual abuse by private non-state actors to be torture under Article 1 of the Convention. Though Archbishop Tomasi did not make such an admission, after the conclusion of Tuesday's Committee session on the Holy See report, Ms. Gaer stated to the media that she considered his response to be a clear admission by the Holy See that sexual violence can be a form of torture.

Ms. Gaer's conduct evidenced the very due process and rule of law violations that, in its shadow report, Solidarity Center urged the Committee against Torture to avoid. As a result, yesterday, Solidarity Center for Law and Justice filed with the Committee the attached Addendum to its shadow report.

This afternoon (Geneva time), in his capacity as Permanent Observer of Holy See to the United Nations in Geneva, Archbishop Tomasi sent the attached letter to Claudio Grossman, Chairman of the Committee against Torture, in which he expresses his concern about Ms. Gaer's conduct.

Meanwhile, this afternoon, the Holy See sent the attached Communique to the Press in which Archbishop Tomasi confirms that he did not make the statement attributed to him by Ms. Gaer in the media. Also, by providing a transcript of the actual statements made by Archbishop Tomasi during Tuesday's hearing, the  Communique evidences the degree to which Ms. Gaer's statement to the media completely misrepresented his remarks.

 There is a more thorough statement by Archbishop Tomasi on his impressions relating to the Committee's public review of the Holy See's report on this link.

If, through Ms. Gaer's efforts, the Committee against Torture is successful in unilaterally (without State party approval) amending the Convention through its State party reporting process (in violation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), then rape will be treated as torture under the Convention. Thereafter, any State party (including the Holy See) that limits the ability of the victims of rape to secure abortions could be determined to be denying torture victims access to the health services they desire. Also, the reclassification of rape to torture could expose the Catholic Church to liability for claims arising from the sexual abuse of children by priests in cases aged well beyond the normal statute of limitations for bringing such claims.

In any case, unless Chairman Grossman immediately takes the steps necessary to ensure that the Committee's review of the Holy See's initial report respects due process and the rule of law, including the removal of Ms. Gaer as a participant in that review, the Holy See could be subjected to a very unfair result and classification as a "torturer" by opponents of the Church and the global media.  
Jim Kelly President Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, P.C.
Five Concourse Parkway Suite 200 Atlanta, Georgia 30328

Monday, May 12, 2014

Pope Francis meets with UN Secretary General and the Chief Executive Board of the UN


Pope Francis, in what could be termed, a very significant meeting, met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and the heads of 29 UN related agencies consisting of the UN SYSTEM CHIEF EXECUTIVES BOARD FOR COORDINATION, on Friday last, May 9th.

Pope Francis poignantly reminded the meeting that all human life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death.
‘Today, in concrete terms, an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands,’
The Holy Father also challenged the assembled dignitaries to be conscious, in their development of sustainable goals, of the importance of providing appropriate protection for the family, which he said is an essential element in sustainable human and social development which specifically involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the "economy of exclusion", the "throwaway culture" and the "culture of death" which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted

The full text of the Holy Father’s address is included below and can also be found on this link.
Mr Secretary General,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am pleased to welcome you, Mr Secretary-General and the leading executive officers of the Agencies, Funds and Programmes of the United Nations and specialized Organizations, as you gather in Rome for the biannual meeting for strategic coordination of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board.

It is significant that today’s meeting takes place shortly after the solemn canonization of my predecessors, Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. The new saints inspire us by their passionate concern for integral human development and for understanding between peoples. This concern was concretely expressed by the numerous visits of John Paul II to the Organizations headquartered in Rome and by his travels to New York, Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi, Paris and The Hague.

I thank you, Mr Secretary-General, for your cordial words of introduction. I thank all of you, who are primarily responsible for the international system, for the great efforts being made to ensure world peace, respect for human dignity, the protection of persons, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, and harmonious economic and social development.

The results of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in terms of education and the decrease in extreme poverty, confirm the value of the work of coordination carried out by this Chief Executives Board. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the world’s peoples deserve and expect even greater results.

An essential principle of management is the refusal to be satisfied with current results and to press forward, in the conviction that those gains are only consolidated by working to achieve even more. In the case of global political and economic organization, much more needs to be achieved, since an important part of humanity does not share in the benefits of progress and is in fact relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Future Sustainable Development Goals must therefore be formulated and carried out with generosity and courage, so that they can have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger, attain more substantial results in protecting the environment, ensure dignified and productive labor for all, and provide appropriate protection for the family, which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development. Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the "economy of exclusion", the "throwaway culture" and the "culture of death" which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted.

With this in mind, I would like to remind you, as representatives of the chief agencies of global cooperation, of an incident which took place two thousand years ago and is recounted in the Gospel of Saint Luke (19:1-10). It is the encounter between Jesus Christ and the rich tax collector Zacchaeus, as a result of which Zacchaeus made a radical decision of sharing and justice, because his conscience had been awakened by the gaze of Jesus. This same spirit should be at the beginning and end of all political and economic activity. The gaze, often silent, of that part of the human family which is cast off, left behind, ought to awaken the conscience of political and economic agents and lead them to generous and courageous decisions with immediate results, like the decision of Zacchaeus. Does this spirit of solidarity and sharing guide all our thoughts and actions, I ask myself?

Today, in concrete terms, an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands, material goods but also intellectual and spiritual ones, and to give back generously and lavishly whatever we may have earlier unjustly refused to others.

The account of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches us that above and beyond economic and social systems and theories, there will always be a need to promote generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others. Jesus does not ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others. Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors (cf. JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42-43; Centesimus Annus, 43; BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 6; 24-40), that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.

Consequently, while encouraging you in your continuing efforts to coordinate the activity of the international agencies, which represents a service to all humanity, I urge you to work together in promoting a true, worldwide ethical mobilization which, beyond all differences of religious or political convictions, will spread and put into practice a shared ideal of fraternity and solidarity, especially with regard to the poorest and those most excluded.

Invoking divine guidance on the work of your Board, I also implore God’s special blessing for you, Mr Secretary-General, for the Presidents, Directors and Secretaries General present among us, and for all the personnel of the United Nations and the other international Agencies and Bodies, and their respective families. Thank you very much.

Friday, May 9, 2014

New 
Group 
to
 campaign
 for 
Family
 and
 Marriage 
in 
Ireland



We report today on a new initiative in support marriage and the family.
The Alliance for the Defence of the Family and Marriage  ADFAM have issued a press release which is set out in full below.
Alliance
 for
 the
 Defence
 of
 the
 Family
 and
 Marriage
 (ADFAM)
 is
 a
 new
 initiative
 to
 promote
 and
 defend
 the
 traditional
 family.
 It
 is
 composed
 of
 men
 and
 women
 from
 across
 Ireland.
 
 The
 objective
 will
 be
 to
 build
 an
 alliance
 of
 like­minded
 groups 
across 
Ireland 
to 
campaign 
against
 the 
proposed
 redefinition 
of
 marriage
 by 
the 
Fine 
Gael/Labour
 Government.




Our
 immediate
 aim
 is
 to
 oppose
 the
 General
 Scheme
 of
 a
 Children
 and
 Family
 Relationships
 Bill
 2014.
 If
 it
 becomes
 a
 Bill,
 and
 the
 Bill
 is
 passed,
 it
 will
 allow
 non‐marital
 couples,
 including
 same‐sex
 couples,
 the
 guardianship
 and
 custody
 of
 children,
 and
 the
 adoption
 of
 children
 by
 such
 couples.
 Such
 arrangements
 increase
 significantly
 the 
danger 
to 
the
 children.
 This 
proposal
 will 
also
 redefine
 by
 stealth
 the
 family
 by
 allowing
 the
 transfer
 of
 the
 natural
 rights
 of
 biological
 parents
 to
 commissioning
 couples
 in
 surrogacy
 arrangements.
 Surrogacy
 involves
 making
 a
 reproductive
 slave
 of
 the
 surrogate
 mother,
 the
 vast
 elimination
 of
 human
 embyros
 (who
 are
 living
 human
 beings),
 and
 “embryo
 reduction”
 after
 implantation.
 The
 concentration
 is
 on
 the
 rights
 of
 adults.
 
 We
 have
 been
 denied
 our
 right
 to
 vote
 on
 these
 issues
 as
 Minister
 Shatter
 has
 described
 them
 as 
‘extraneous’.


  

ADFAM
 will
 offer
 resources
 to
 assist
 with
 the
 education
 and
 catechesis
 of
 Catholics
 on
 why
 marriage
 is
 unique
 and
 why
 it
 should
 be
 promoted
 and
 protected
 as
 the
 union
 of
 one
 man
 and
 one
 woman.
 The
 organisation
 plans
 to
 hold
 a
 series
 of
 public
 meetings
 in
 every
 county
 of
 Ireland
 in
 order
 to
 recruit
 members
 so
 that
 an
 effective
 national
 campaign
 can
 be
 mounted
 against
 the
 Government’s 
intention 
to
 redefine 
marriage
 through 
a
 referendum
 in
 2015.


ADFAM
 will
 highlight
 what
 happens
 to
 families
 and
 marriage
 where
 the
 law
 recognises
 same-
­sex
 “marriage”
 and
 seeks
 to
 correct
 the
 myth
 that
 marriage
 is
 merely
 a
 private
 arrangement
 between
 two
 people.
 Monogamous
 marriage
 between 
man 
and
 woman
 has 
been
 the
 cornerstone 
for 
civilisation 
since 
its 
very
 beginnings.
 Many
 believe
 that
 the
 introduction
 of
 same-­sex
 “marriage”
 is
 based
 on
 equality
 and
 will
 be
 a
 harmless
 redefinition
 ofan
 institution
 that
 will
 be
 unaffected
 by
 it.
 Instead
 it
 will
 reinforce
 the
 idea
 that
 marriage
 is
 irrelevant
 to
 parenthood
 and
 it
 will
 intentionally
 deprive
 children
 of
 their
 natural
 father
 and/or
 mother.
 ADFAM 
will 
campaign 
for 
the
 rights
 of
 children 
and
 in
 particular
 the 
right 
of
 every
 child 
to 
a 
father 
and 
a 
mother.


For 
further 
information 
please 
contact
 Anthony
 Murphy:
 0877727669