UN slams Vatican over abuse — and contraception and abortion positions

posted at 10:01 am on February 5, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Despite having a membership that includes some of the worst human-rights abusers in the world (or because of it), the UN has spent the last few weeks grilling the Vatican for its track record on child abuse. While there are certainly grounds for lengthy and detailed criticism on that point, the UN hardly has its hands clean in that area — and it turned out to be an excuse for attacking Catholic doctrine on abortion and contraception anyway:

The UN has demanded that the Vatican “immediately remove” all clergy who are known or suspected child abusers, in a report released on Wednesday.

The UN watchdog for children’s rights denounced the Holy See for adopting policies allowing priests to sexually abuse thousands of children.

It heavily criticised the Vatican’s attitudes towards homosexuality, contraception and abortion.

Excuse me, but what exactly was the purview of this UN committee on contraception and abortion? The panel in this case was the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, a committee whose mission in a sane world would include children at all stages of development. Indeed, the convention under which its authority derives actually forbids the death penalty for children — and never mentions abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or any gender-related issues.

The Vatican is a signatory to the convention, though, which gives the UNCRC jurisdiction on the abuse issues, specifically in Article 19, Section 1. And the Vatican’s track record over the long arc of the last several decades leaves plenty of room for criticism and condemnation — as the Vatican belatedly recognized toward the end of John Paul II’s pontificate. As the BBC notes, the Vatican has already created its own commission to deal with the issue, and years ago issued strict rules for dealing with abuse allegations. During Benedict XVI’s pontificate alone, over 400 priests were defrocked after being accused of abuse.

This, however, is little more than political targeting over the doctrines related to sex, not the protection of children. And the UN is uniquely hypocritical here as well, since its own military missions have for years gone on rape and sexual-abuse rampages, especially in Africa, as Instapundit reminds us:

Widespread allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse of Congolese women, boys and girls have been made against U.N. personnel who were sent to help and protect them — despite a so-called zero tolerance policy touted by the United Nations toward such behavior.

The range of sexual abuse includes reported rapes of young Congolese girls by U.N. troops; an Internet pedophile ring run from Congo by Didier Bourguet, a senior U.N. official from France; a colonel from South Africa accused of molesting his teenage male translators; and estimates of hundreds of underage girls having babies fathered by U.N. soldiers who have been able to simply leave their children and their crimes behind.

Ravaged by decades of civil war, and one of the poorest countries in the world, Congo has relied on the United Nations for both military protection and humanitarian aid.

“The U.N. is there for their protection, so when the protectors become violators, this is particularly egregious,” said Anneke Van Woudenberg, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch who investigated the allegations on behalf of her organization. “This is particularly bad.”

That ABC report came two months after the UN admitted to its own shortcomings.  A month after the ABC report, the Washington Post reported that this abuse wasn’t contained to the Congolese mission, either:

The United Nations is facing new allegations of sexual misconduct by U.N. personnel in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere, which is complicating the organization’s efforts to contain a sexual abuse scandal that has tarnished its Nobel Prize-winning peacekeepers in Congo. …

The reports of sexual abuse have come from U.N. officials, internal U.N. documents, and local and international human rights organizations that have tracked the issue. Some U.N. officials and outside observers say there have been cases of abuse in almost every U.N. mission, including operations in Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Kosovo.

“This is a problem in every mission around the world,” said Sarah Martin, an expert on the subject at Refugees International who recently conducted investigations into misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia. “If you don’t have a strict code of discipline, accountability and transparency in the process, then you’re going to continue to have a problem.”

Peacekeepers in several Liberian communities routinely engage in sex with girls, according to an internal U.N. letter obtained by The Washington Post. In the town of Gbarnga, peacekeepers were seen patronizing a club called Little Lagos, “where girls as young as 12 years of age are engaged in prostitution, forced into sex acts and sometimes photographed by U.N. peacekeepers in exchange for $10 or food or other commodities,” according to the letter, which a representative of the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) wrote Feb. 8 to the mission’s second-ranking official.

The letter also stated that community leaders in the town of Robertsport have accused Namibian peacekeepers there of “using administrative building premises and the surrounding bush to undertake sex acts with girls between the age of 12-17.”

Most of this massive abuse from UN personnel took place after the Vatican acknowledged its own failures and took steps to correct them. The Vatican has a lot of work to do to get its house in order, but this report is clearly a political hit that exploits abuse rather than an attempt to address it — and by people who would be advised to spend more time getting the beam out of their own eye first before using abuse as an excuse to attack others.

The Vatican released its response a few minutes earlier:

“At the end of its 65th session, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has published its Concluding Observations on the reviewed Reports of the Holy See and five States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Congo, Germany, Portugal, Russian Federation and Yemen).

According to the proper procedures foreseen for the parties to the Convention, the Holy See takes note of the Concluding Observations on its Reports, which will be submitted to a thorough study and examination, in full respect of the Convention in the different areas presented by the Committee according to international law and practice, as well as taking into consideration the public interactive debate with the Committee, held on 16 January 2014.

The Holy See does, however, regret to see in some points of the Concluding Observations an attempt to interfere with Catholic Church teaching on the dignity of the human person and in the exercise of religious freedom.

The Holy See reiterates its commitment to defending and protecting the rights of the child, in line with the principles promoted by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and according to the moral and religious values offered by Catholic doctrine”.

Update: Catholic Voices offers a point-by-point rebuttal and a conclusion — that the UN process was a “kangaroo court.” Seems that way. Too bad they don’t hold their own organization to anything approaching this level of scrutiny, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:10

cww on February 5, 2014 at 10:04 AM

The UN has demanded that the Vatican “immediately remove” all clergy who are known or suspected child abusers, in a report released on Wednesday.

Watch it, Reid. They’ll turn their eyes to the U.S. Congress next.

Chris of Rights on February 5, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Dear UN,

You first!

Thanks,
EB

EdmundBurke247 on February 5, 2014 at 10:05 AM

We should care what the u.n. say why?

Lost in Jersey on February 5, 2014 at 10:07 AM

The UN has demanded that the Vatican “immediately remove” all clergy who are known or suspected child abusers, in a report released on Wednesday.

How ironic – maybe they can send the blue helmets in.

Ward Cleaver on February 5, 2014 at 10:07 AM

So the UN says that to save the children we must first kill the children.

Yep, time to walk away from the UN…

Nethicus on February 5, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Excuse me, but what exactly was the purview of this UN committee on contraception and abortion? The panel in this case was the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

Irony is lost on marxists. I’d vote for any presidential candidate who would promise to get us out of the UN. It’s a corrupt and toxic organization at this point.

rbj on February 5, 2014 at 10:09 AM

The UN sucks…we have known this for some time

crosshugger on February 5, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I’d vote for any presidential candidate who would promise to get us out of the UN. It’s a corrupt and toxic organization at this point.

rbj on February 5, 2014 at 10:09 AM

That’s what these guys have been saying for over 50 years.

platypus on February 5, 2014 at 10:14 AM

The silver lining to this is that it shows that the veil is dropping, and the real purpose of the UN is becoming clear. That alone will decrease it’s influence.

KMC1 on February 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM

And yet some people keep saying how important the UN is and what a benefit it is to have it located in NY. IMO we should send it off to some wussie neutral country and reduce by at least half the amount we fund.

You have to wonder exactly what the UN thinks it will do if the Pope tells them to shove it. Does the UN plan on invading the Vatican? Demand the next Pope be elected by an open vote?

katiejane on February 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM

I fail to see why this is any of the UN’s business. The Vatican is a nation unto itself, but it is tiny and insignificant in those terms. And the vast majority of Catholic churches operate under the rules of other nations. If those nations fail to root out pedophiles it is also a problem with the people and laws of those nations, not just the Vatican. Quite frankly this is an attack on religion more than anything else.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM

The UN endorses the slaughter of millions of children and then they get upset because a few priests made a mistake.

Monsters.

Pablo Honey on February 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM

The UN has demanded that the Vatican “immediately remove” all clergy who are known or suspected child abusers, in a report released on Wednesday.

How ironic – maybe they can send the blue helmets in.

Ward Cleaver on February 5, 2014 at 10:07 AM

…they want virgins!

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2014 at 10:24 AM

The Swiss Guard could easily handle the Blue Helmets :)

thebrokenrattle on February 5, 2014 at 10:28 AM

The UN endorses the slaughter of millions of children and then they get upset because a few priests made a mistake.

Monsters.

Pablo Honey on February 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM

I don’t agree with the UNCRC’s involvement but the Catholic Church has far more to answer for than a few rogue priests who made a “mistake.” There was a systemic and deliberate cover-up of pedophile priests that went on for decades. That isn’t a simple “mistake.”

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2014 at 10:31 AM

You have to wonder exactly what the UN thinks it will do if the Pope tells them to shove it. Does the UN plan on invading the Vatican? Demand the next Pope be elected by an open vote?

katiejane on February 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Or condemn them for not ever electing a female.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Funny I see no condemnation of the activly supportd and religously authorized practice of molesting preteen girls the Religion of Pieces promotes.

Skwor on February 5, 2014 at 10:33 AM

If memory serves, UN “peacekeepers” have something of a record themselves in the child abuse department.

The Catholic Church certainly has some issues to resolve on this front, but I wouldn’t rely on the UN to address them.

morganfrost on February 5, 2014 at 10:34 AM

To quote SDA, “And we are still part of this organization? Why?”

Old Country Boy on February 5, 2014 at 10:37 AM

That’s what these guys have been saying for over 50 years.

platypus on February 5, 2014 at 10:14 AM

So the Birchers are right about one thing. So was Dear Liar’s decision to cap Osama.

I don’t mind having an organization where different nations can talk to each other and try to settle disputes peacefully. Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War as someone once said. But the UN has gone far afield of that mission, it needs to go away.

rbj on February 5, 2014 at 10:38 AM

The child sexual abuse scandal is a serious issue and it is ongoing. The current policies only deal with the abusers themselves, not the bishops who cover them up. Cardinal Law is still hanging around Rome and going to Vatican functions as is Cardinal Rigali. Cardinal Mahoney got a private audience with Pope Francis a few weeks back. There was a scandal in the archdiocese of Minneapolis late last year and the diocese of Helena just filed for bankruptcy. My archdiocese of Chicago, one of the “cleaner” archdioceses, had to release thousands of pages of documents to the press. I’ve never heard of any bishop being fired for it.

None of the above is linked to the Vatican’s positions on birth control and abortion. While I think that the Vatican’s position on birth control is wrong and support abortion in specific situations (rape and the life of the mother), I also don’t think that they have anything with the child abuse scandal. My concern is that linking abuse scandal with an ideological screed makes it easy for Catholics to dismiss the serious work that still needs to be done on the abuse scandal. It allows bishops accused of hiding abuse to brush off allegations of cover ups and smear victims. And it allows the Church to put off dealing with some of the most egregious bishops. As I said above, none of the bishops have ever lost their jobs or faced Church sanctions for their cover-ups. There really needs to be mass firings, starting with Bishop Finn in Kansas City.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 10:39 AM

There was a systemic and deliberate cover-up of pedophile priests that went on for decades. That isn’t a simple “mistake.”

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2014 at 10:31 AM

And somehow this is different than how the Hollywood and political homosexuals are treated today by the left? At least the Vatican doesn’t give them lifetime achievement awards like Woody Allen, and protect them from prosecution like Roman Polansky.

Old Country Boy on February 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM

That’s what these guys have been saying for over 50 years.

platypus on February 5, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Yeah, I used to think the Birchers were crazy. I know longer do. I’m not sure if that says something about me, the UN, or the Birchers.

Chris of Rights on February 5, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 10:39 AM

The UN has no business commenting on or attacking the Catholic Church whether or not the Vatican still needs to do a lot of house cleaning on this issue. The UN is supposed to deal with governments, not religion.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 10:44 AM

I don’t agree with the UNCRC’s involvement but the Catholic Church has far more to answer for than a few rogue priests who made a “mistake.” There was a systemic and deliberate cover-up of pedophile priests that went on for decades. That isn’t a simple “mistake.”

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2014 at 10:31 AM

The UN’s ideological screed allows conservative Catholics to keep labeling the situation as insignificant.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 10:44 AM

And somehow this is different than how the Hollywood and political homosexuals are treated today by the left? At least the Vatican doesn’t give them lifetime achievement awards like Woody Allen, and protect them from prosecution like Roman Polansky.

Old Country Boy on February 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Both Polansky and Allen are accused of sexually assaulting little girls.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 10:46 AM

The UN has no business commenting on or attacking the Catholic Church whether or not the Vatican still needs to do a lot of house cleaning on this issue. The UN is supposed to deal with governments, not religion.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is blameless.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 10:48 AM

And somehow this is different than how the Hollywood and political homosexuals are treated today by the left? At least the Vatican doesn’t give them lifetime achievement awards like Woody Allen, and protect them from prosecution like Roman Polansky.

Old Country Boy on February 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Actually the church did protect them from prosecution. Some preists were relocated and local athorities never notified of the crime, information was withheld and a few instances the families involved bullied by the curch to keep quiet.

The UN is totally out of bounds on this but the Catholic Church has alot of corruption of the worst kind left unaccounted for.

Skwor on February 5, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is blameless.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 10:48 AM

I don’t have much to say about that because I’m not a Catholic, and I’ll leave Catholic business to Catholics. In the United States those guilty of such heinous acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but it is not the responsibility of our government to clean the Catholic house unless there is a criminal enterprise within it.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 10:52 AM

And somehow this is different than how the Hollywood and political homosexuals are treated today by the left? At least the Vatican doesn’t give them lifetime achievement awards like Woody Allen, and protect them from prosecution like Roman Polansky.

Old Country Boy on February 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Don’t get me started on the cultural corruption of Hollywood! But yeah, it is pretty amazing the way Polansky and Allen have been shielded because they are “artists” or something.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Yeah, I used to think the Birchers were crazy. I know longer do. I’m not sure if that says something about me, the UN, or the Birchers.

Chris of Rights on February 5, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Probably all three. Buckley (a Catholic, for what it’s forth) was right to purge their influence from the Right.

thebrokenrattle on February 5, 2014 at 10:55 AM

I am not a fan of the Catholic Church, but it is upsetting to me that the UN puts itself in the place of the judge of the Catholic Church. We shouldn’t have a global government that judges. We need global intellectual diversity and not UN enforced uniformity.

We need to not fund the UN, but we have to stay in it. Our veto in the Security enables us to block some of the abuses of the UN.

thuja on February 5, 2014 at 10:56 AM

I fail to see why this is any of the UN’s business. The Vatican is a nation unto itself, but it is tiny and insignificant in those terms. And the vast majority of Catholic churches operate under the rules of other nations. If those nations fail to root out pedophiles it is also a problem with the people and laws of those nations, not just the Vatican. Quite frankly this is an attack on religion more than anything else.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Moral posturing by people who have no room to talk.

I believe that meets the definition of hypocrisy

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM

The Vatican and Israel may have some interesting things to discuss with regard to the UN, it seems.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on February 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Moral posturing by people who have no room to talk.

I believe that meets the definition of hypocrisy

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM

That goes without saying, but regardless the UN still does not belong in this discussion at all.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:03 AM

When will we get the UN out of the USA and the USA out of the UN?

AH_C on February 5, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Teachers unions are just as bad if not worse WRT its members sexually abusing children and then shielding the abusers.

Animal60 on February 5, 2014 at 11:09 AM

MeanWhile the UN isn’t Holier Than Thou:

Report reveals shame of UN peacekeepers
Sexual abuse by soldiers ‘must be punished’
Friday 25 March 2005 02.43 GMT
*******************************

The reputation of United Nations peacekeeping missions suffered a humiliating blow yesterday as an internal report identified repeated patterns of sexual abuse and rape perpetrated by soldiers supposed to be restoring the international rule of law.

The highly critical study, published by Jordan’s ambassador to the UN assembly, was endorsed by the organisation’s embattled secretary general, Kofi Annan, who condemned such “abhorrent acts” as a “violation of the fundamental duty of care”.

The embarrassment caused by the misconduct of UN forces in devastated communities around the world – including Haiti, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Cambodia , East Timor and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – has become an increasingly high profile, political problem. (More…)
=====================================================================

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/25/unitednations

canopfor on February 5, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 10:39 AM

I went through RCIA in the Archdiocese of Chicago.

If you support abortion in cases of rape-you’re going against Catholic teachings. Big time!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 5, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Quite frankly this is an attack on religion more than anything else.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM

No, it’s an attack on Christianity specifically. The UN, and the supposed “atheist” left, love Islam.

Doomberg on February 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM

The Vatican is a signatory to the convention, though, which gives the UNCRC jurisdiction on the abuse issues.

When you lie down with dogs, you wake up with flees.

The Church seems to regularly make the mistake of associating with governmental organizations. They are all bad to differing degrees, but the UN is the worst because of its pretensions to world influence and it hatred of Western ideals.

Nomennovum on February 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM

I went through RCIA in the Archdiocese of Chicago.

If you support abortion in cases of rape-you’re going against Catholic teachings. Big time!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 5, 2014 at 11:14 AM

As a cradle Catholic, I am well aware of the Church’s teachings on abortion; however, it really is difficult for me to tell a woman who has been brutally raped that she has to carry her rapists’ baby. There have been a few situations where the Church has gone way to far on this one, including excommunicated a nine-year-old Brazilian girl raped by her stepfather. I also, like most other Catholics, disagree with the Church’s position on birth control. I really don’t think that old celibate men get to determine a woman’s birth control choices.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

So what’s the Islamic policy on abortion and contraception and the UN attitude toward’s that.

kd6rxl on February 5, 2014 at 11:56 AM

I also, like most other Catholics, disagree with the Church’s position on birth control. I really don’t think that old celibate men get to determine a woman’s birth control choices.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Perhaps if you knew why the Church was against birth control, you’d agree with it. It has nothing to do with Old Celibate Men determining how people should have sex– it has to do with how the Church sees sex and procreation.

Sex is a procreative act– it’s how life is created. It’s truly one of the most “god”-like things people can do, and as a result, it should be entered into seriously. If a new life is being created, then, through the Dogma, God must be involved. God’s plan for families is to bring a man and a woman to make life and grow together in God’s love.

By inserting a barrier to that creation, you’re taking God out of the equation. Essentially, you are saying you know better than God. In addition, sex with contraceptives encourages the destructive behavior of promiscuous sex (see the deadly sin Lust and over-consumption, or Gluttony). Each of these is a stand against the overall purpose of sex, which is to procreate, not make each other feel better.

If there is any doubt as to the destructive nature of birth control, simply look at the decline of the family since the 1950′s, the rise of single-parents, and the decline of morality in Western culture. All evidence is pointing to the Church having a point in opposing the freedom of birth control.

Nethicus on February 5, 2014 at 11:58 AM

The Catholic Church has its things to answer for – largely due to its unwillingness to stop the spread of homosexual predatory priest formation and subsequent appointments in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Thankfully, that has been stopped. The incidents of abuse are unfortunately not unique to the Catholic Church, and other groups have even worse records to defend. Nevertheless, if Pope Benedict defrocked 400 priests over this in his short time I hope Pope Francis continues the practice. Systemically it appears the flaws have been fixed from an admin perspective. But the Catholic Church does not deserve more than its share of accusatory rhetoric from individuals affiliated with organizations who have done less, and have greater incidents of this misdeed.

IllniDiva, clearly we can have a legitimate disagreement on abortion in the case of rape. And I clearly have sympathy for the mother in this case of such a terrible act. I don’t condemn her decision, though I hope she will realize the child is guiltless as well. As to your other condition – saving the life of the mother – you need to update your information – that is allowed, the necessity of medical triage in those unfortunate situations where one life must be sacrificed for the saving of the other. SOme mothers will choose to save the life in them, others will choose to save their own. Both are completely appropriate decisions. I have known women who have made that decision going both ways. A profoundly difficult decision to make. Often times they choose the child – not unlike a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades. Very tough indeed.

Thuja – all I can say is Amen, yes we need to veto every damn thing the UN does, with increased vigor.

Zomcon JEM on February 5, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Screw that worthless “UN”.

rplat on February 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Nethicus on February 5, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Sex within the confines of marrage has more purpose than conception. Bibilcally the total ban on contraception of any kind is a weak leg to stand on. As far as abortion a life is a life and I understand the Catholic Churchs stand on that issue.

I challange you and anyone to find a biblically based argument for declaring birth control, within the confines of a marrage, which does not depend on destruction of the fetus, as a sin.

I am open to having my mind changed on this as I have searched and not found a convincing argument to date.

Skwor on February 5, 2014 at 1:21 PM

While I think that the Vatican’s position on birth control is wrong and support abortion in specific situations (rape and the life of the mother)

Good grief.

I also, like most other Catholics, disagree with the Church’s position on birth control. I really don’t think that old celibate men get to determine a woman’s birth control choices.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

This is what happens when you think of the Mass as a happy clappy party and don’t study the Catechism.

Kensington on February 5, 2014 at 1:37 PM

I don’t think one needs to be particularly religious to feel skeevy about birth control. When we think about doing something so deliberate for the express purpose of keeping another human being from coming into existence — and all the experiences that come with living — that’s pretty heavy stuff.

bmmg39 on February 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM

This is what happens when you think of the Mass as a happy clappy party and don’t study the Catechism.

Kensington on February 5, 2014 at 1:37 PM

I actually agree with yuor point about Catholics lacking understand of Catholic Catechism.

Now to what the Bible actually says on the subject of birth control. The Bible is mostly silent and we have instead a tradition determining doctrine on this subject. This brings to mind a few verses uttered by Christ himself.

Mathhew 7-13
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Man has often allowed our tradition and interpretation to be a hinderance to the word as opposed to an elightenment.

Skwor on February 5, 2014 at 1:56 PM

And I’m sure they’ll be making a statement about the changes that Islam needs to make in 5…4…3…2…1…

Zetterson on February 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM

I challange you and anyone to find a biblically based argument for declaring birth control, within the confines of a marrage, which does not depend on destruction of the fetus, as a sin.

I am open to having my mind changed on this as I have searched and not found a convincing argument to date.

Skwor on February 5, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Skwor:

Using an artificial barrier to conception is to, in effect, declare that you know better than God as far as procreation goes. It’s thinking you know better than God. It’s not a direct allegory, but the prophecy of the 3 Angels visiting Abraham and Sarah holds meaning for those who do not expect to conceive, but do so as a reward from God. (Genesis 18:1-15)

Another issue is to bring the focus away from building a family and life and instead focus on the sexuality. When that happens, and you lose focus to what sex is for, the risk of treating it as something different is greater.

Hope that helps.

Nethicus on February 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Skwor:

Using an artificial barrier to conception is to, in effect, declare that you know better than God as far as procreation goes. It’s thinking you know better than God. It’s not a direct allegory, but the prophecy of the 3 Angels visiting Abraham and Sarah holds meaning for those who do not expect to conceive, but do so as a reward from God. (Genesis 18:1-15)

Another issue is to bring the focus away from building a family and life and instead focus on the sexuality. When that happens, and you lose focus to what sex is for, the risk of treating it as something different is greater.

Hope that helps.

Nethicus on February 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM

I follow your logic but it does not pass simple reasoning against other biblically defined purposes.

Using your same reasoning we can also condemn anyone who does not marry and produce at least 3 or more children as we are told to be fruitful and multiply. Yet I see no one saying it is a sin to never get married and produce children. But it is obviously a key purpose for man’s existence upon earth. I follow the reasoning, I also consider it weak and ask biblically how is it justified. I also reject that the only valid purpose for sex is conception which your argument tends to rely on. Otherwise their would be other reasons to have sex and they would not always require conception. I would add that it is that line of thought that brought about the idea that unless it was missionary and solely for the purpose of producing a child then the sex was a sin. This appears a man made concept that I ask again where in the bible does this have any support?

Please note that even the Catholic arguments for this rely on tradition to the effort of pointing out other religions believed the same up until the early 1900′s. I also find that argument dishonest because that same line of thought can justify slavery.

Skwor on February 5, 2014 at 4:36 PM

This is what happens when you think of the Mass as a happy clappy party and don’t study the Catechism.

Kensington on February 5, 2014 at 1:37 PM

People grow brains rather than being lemmings? And people are aware of the Church’s position on sex but choose to disagree with them.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Using your same reasoning we can also condemn anyone who does not marry and produce at least 3 or more children as we are told to be fruitful and multiply. Yet I see no one saying it is a sin to never get married and produce children

No, by my logic, married people who do not produce children are not given the gift by God, regardless of the amount of sex they have. Abraham and Sarah were barren until the miracle happened. It doesn’t happen to everyone, but as we see in the Bible, it can happen.

As for your second point, I refer you to adultery, etc. Children are meant to be had in wedlock, but the sin was having premarital sex in the first place. We don’t condemn children born outside of wedlock (see: bastards), but we recognize that it’s not the best environment for the single parent and the child.

I also reject that the only valid purpose for sex is conception which your argument tends to rely on.

If God is the Creator, and life is created through sex, then we must recognize that the sexual process has a spark of the divine in it. So a creation of a new life is born of a man, woman and God. Which is why Marriage is considered a Sacrament to Catholics, because it’s not the union of man & woman, it’s a union of the man & woman under God. God is fully involved in the marriage.

I would add that it is that line of thought that brought about the idea that unless it was missionary and solely for the purpose of producing a child then the sex was a sin. This appears a man made concept that I ask again where in the bible does this have any support?

Since this appears to be a strawman, I’m not going to pursue it. I would rather point you to the Catechism of Catholic Doctrine to find support of the idea that non-missionary sex is a sin.

In fact, I recommend you read the whole section on Matrimony.

Nethicus on February 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM

People grow brains rather than being lemmings?

No, they just become lemmings for the popular culture.

And people are aware of the Church’s position on sex but choose to disagree with them.

Illinidiva on February 5, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Yup, bad Catholics.

Kensington on February 6, 2014 at 10:59 AM