UN: Vatican Gets What It Deserves

Ouch. Like a Chinese finger trap. Once you buy in, it’s hard to beg off.

[UPDATE: My point is that, in much the same way that caesaropapism wrought problems for Eastern Orthodoxy, so “global democracy” is undermining the Catholic Church. Call it demopapism, if you like. At least with caesaropapism the monarch was committed to the same Faith. In contrast, by “playing house” with the anti-Christian UN, which has an increasingly flagrant hostility to the Faith, the Church is diluting its own unique moral authority.

Thus, if I may be permitted to apply the Bible to ecclesial and worldly matters:

2 Corinthians 6 — 14 Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: 18 And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.]

Mundabor's Blog

Should be in every office in Vatican City. Not very likely, though. Should be in every office in Vatican City. Not very likely, though.

The National Catholic Register (not to be confused with the “Reporter”)  has an article dealing with another of those UN thingies: the Vatican is under attack from them because discriminating against pervs is “torture”, and they are. or might be, therefore in violation of the UN treaties against torture.

I kid you not.

You made your bed, now lie in it, one would say.

When a Catholic Theocracy is so shortsighted that it accepts to become part of UN agreements, bound to duties given to them by the UN, it deserves to be treated this way.

The Vatican, therefore, accepts to be put under official scrutiny by this bunch of bastards and perverts, and will present a report highlighting how they have “sought to comply” with the UN.

Because you see, it’s not only fags. The…

View original post 47 more words


About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to UN: Vatican Gets What It Deserves

  1. Dear BAC. The Holy See has a long track record of success opposing the spread of abortion and it has effectively cooperated with the various delegations of Islam in doing so.

    The Holy See is right to oppose torture and just because one faces opposition for lunatics is no reason to withdraw from the world.

    Pax tecum my friend

  2. What do you think would have happened if the Vatican officially opposed signing the treaty?

    I’m serious. What would the response have been? You think the U.N. would have backed off? Do you think the backlash would have been less severe?

  3. I don’t see any reason why The Holy See should have refused to sign the treaty. The Holy See will be opposed by lunatics no matter what it does or doesn’t do.

    It is interesting to note that many of those who carp about the silence of the Holy See in this, that, or the other instance, will then breach and blow hard when The Holy See does engage the world in life and death matters.

  4. Tony Jokin says:

    Look, when you sign something like what the Holy See has done with the UN, it means that they agree to uphold whatever the UN upholds as it’s core values. Do you see the problem now at least?

    The Church pretty much signed up for deciding what are “Human Rights” and other moral precepts by democratic means. Well, this is what you get then.

    There is more to come as our Bishops in the US and Europe try to win rights by touting a concept of “Religious Freedom” that is outright nonsensical. Whether they win or lose, they would have made people to accept a “right” that does not exist to believe whatever they want and practice it (or refrain from practicing what the State mandates based on their beliefs).

    Oh and by your line of reasoning, to oppose gay marriage, abortion, contraception is a bad thing. Why? Because that is to withdraw from the world and alienate ourselves. That is obviously absurd yes? Then the correct conclusion here is that somethings must be opposed or rejected even if it means having to withdraw from the world. You might say this is only if one has to accept an explicitly grave immorality in writing. Well, the UN charter of human rights will soon include some grave immoralities like gender equality, gender malleability and same sex marriage. What then?

  5. Tony Jokin says:

    The back lash would probably be even more severe or equal. But at least the position is consistent.

    Now, the Vatican signs and agrees to accept and implement what the UN determines as how things should be. Then the Vatican wants to still hold her position in opposition to the determinations of the UN. That is inconsistent.

    Yes, the UN itself is giving some of the most bogus interpretations of terminology like “Torture” and their laws. BUT, the UN is the authority in charge of interpreting the laws. They set the precedent. The Vatican should have thought about the inevitable clash that will happen as a result.

    Anyway, what is done is done, now is the time to defend the Church!

  6. Tony Jokin says:

    Elliot, please delete my comment above. I was venting my frustration.

    I think this is not a time to vent and go “I told you so” but to stand up and defend the Church.

  7. The question assumes a consequentialist answer, which I am not prepared to endorse.

  8. And your answer assumes that signing the treaty was intrinsically immoral, as opposed to not prudent. Do YOU believe that?

  9. Okay here’s what I’m saying: I think that the problem here, if there is one, would be prudential, not moral. Signing the treaty was NOT intrinsically immoral. All they were doing is agreeing to condemn torture, perhaps foolishly not realizing that the U.N. would then define it in ridiculous ways.

    BUT – if the backlash for NOT signing it would have been worse, and signing it was NOT intrinsically immoral, then perhaps signing the treaty really was the prudent thing to do.

    The Vatican was damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils (using evils to mean negative consequences in this case, not MORAL evils).

    At any rate, even if it was a bad idea, which I’m ready to be convinced of (though the semi-hysterical rant you linked to didn’t help much), I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as people are making it out to be,

  10. The issue is not whether the Vatican should have “officially opposed” the signing of the treaty as such, which would have been based on a principled, absolute moral objection. Simply abstaining from signing, along with issuing a denunciation of torture, would have sufficed. As things stand, the Vatican has nestled itself in bed with the UN, and it’s no surprise that the fleas are starting to bite. Americanism is still a heresy, even if it’s being committed in Europe. The reason I think your query is consequentialist, is because it seems to define the rightness of the Church’s current compromise IN TERMS OF what would have yielded the greatest utility. In contrast, I am simply saying that IF the Vatican made such an imprudent decision, it should be expected to abide by it.

  11. http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/state-department-lies-about-the-holy-see.html

    The Holy See receives little credit for its substantial accomplishments at the UN but that is no reason to ignore (or remain ignorant of) its past successes.

    I can’t see a problem with standing and fighting and it is only to be expected that its successes would lead to increased opposition from our enemies.

    Now, I do wish it would use its presence there to confront the UN on its hypocrisy (I’ll wager Brother BC could draft a rhetorically stinging response to those frauds) but I also confess that ain’t likely to become the bailiwick of the Holy See.

  12. Believe me, Brother BAC, I’m not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And I’m not trying to be willfully contrarian. I just think that Mundabor gets it right many times, and that we need to breathe deeply the fumes of what the Vatican has concocted by rolling around with the UN as if the unions naked were not without peril. Maybe I should just go for it and become a canon lawyer in the Vatican.

    P.S. I have some thoughts I’d like to send you via email. The open web is too easily acrimonious.

  13. My query is only conventionalist if signing the treaty was a moral issue and not a merely prudential one. I hold that it was a prudential issue to be judged on how signing would affect the Church as a whole. I simply don’t think signing the treaty was intrinsically immoral.

  14. Bah, should be “consequentialist”, not “conventionalist”.

  15. Tony Jokin says:

    Signing a treaty is not intrinsically immoral. But neither is walking around in the nude in public. Or giving weapons to terrorists etc. So I fail to see what point you can make from that distinction.

    Just as it is common sense to not walk in public in the nude (for reasons ranging from modesty to not leading others to sin), or it is common sense to not arm terrorist groups because the next target might be ourselves, it is also common sense to not commit to something that clearly can lead to trouble.

    You cannot therefore say “oh, it wasn’t intrinsically immoral so it is OK”. The Church has been making an unusual amount of prudential mistakes that throw common sense right out the window since Vatican II. That has got to stop.

  16. Then it’s a good thing I never said “oh, it wasn’t intrinsically immoral so it’s okay”. Glad we dodged that bullet.

  17. Tony Jokin says:

    To ignore common sense and act imprudently does become a sin at some point.

    Here St. Thomas Aquinas regarding whether imprudence is a sin?


  18. Tony Jokin says:

    Then what is your point? That it is ok for the Church to act imprudently?

  19. Okay then. Were they ignoring common sense, or is this something people can reasonably disagree about? Is it obvious that they shouldn’t have done this and it’s willful ignorance that they did do it, or is it a mere mistake that has no moral character? I hold to the latter.

    You are holding me to things I didn’t say. My argument is not “it’s okay because it’s not intrinsically immoral”. It’s “It MIGHT be okay because signing the treaty condemning torture is not in and of itself immoral, so we need to consider other factors here besides basic morality, like whether or not it’s a good idea”.

    And seriously, maybe it really was a terrible idea. But I don’t think it’s so cut and dry that we should be acting like it’s the most basic mistake in the world, and this horrifically stupid decision.

  20. Okay, one more time for the people sitting in the back:

    My point is that since the issue is not a moral one, then it is a matter where we need to judge other, more immediately practical factors when we look at whether or not to sign the treaty. One of those factors, as much as people (in my experience traditionalists especially) hate to hear this, is how the world will perceive the Church.

    And since it’s not an objectively moral issue on whether or not the treaty should have been signed questions like “Well how would the U.N. have reacted if we HADN’T signed it?” are entirely reasonable questions deserving of a real answer, not a dismissal.

  21. Tony Jokin says:

    Ok, I think I see what you are saying now.

    At this point, it honestly doesn’t matter. It has already happened with results that were expected. So I think even the Vatican should not be surprised or taken aback at what is happening then.

    Perhaps it is therefore wrong to say “got what was deserved”. But I think it is right to say got what was expected at the time of making decisions. So this should come as no surprise. But hopefully, the Church changes tactics from this point forward. The reliance on the UN has to stop. Sooner or later, those things like same sex marriage and abortion are going to be part of the UN charter of rights. Then the Church is going to have a whole load of trouble coming her way. So the Church has to prepare for this reality which is coming.

    The naive idea that the world is just longing for the Church to enlighten them and even seeking the Church actively has to stop.

  22. Well, I appreciate that you took the time to actually try to understand what i was saying – thank you for that, sincerely. It’s rare I see that happen.

    I’m going to be fair here and say that even I, who has a less than positive view of the U.N., didn’t think that “condemns homosexual behavior as sinful” would end up being considered “torture”, yet here we are. You might be right that this is a sign that we should really stop trying to toady up to the U.N., because it’s not working. It’s making us look weak.

  23. Tony Jokin says:

    To be honest, I am not even sure why the Church isn’t sending some good lawyer type priests to take on these panels. Fr. Lombardi, no offense to him, doesn’t look cut out for that sort of thing. Why not send someone who would point out the absurdity of equating torture with various other things. Or even send a priest who can point out how absurd it is to make the child abuse issue a Catholic issue which is essentially what the UN is doing.

    The Church has never said that a priest cannot be arrested by law anyway. So every priest in every country is vulnerable to the law as any other individual. The problem with most abuse cases is that the person complaining never went to the law and instead complained to the Bishop??? Not to be insensitive but that would be the person’s fault. Of it they had reported it to the police, then it would be their fault.

    But no one says anything like this in such a high level questioning session. Or maybe they do and it never gets published.

  24. Tony Jokin says:

    And sorry for replying earlier without reading the comment above. I didn’t see it when I responded before on the thread that had started on your comment before it.

  25. Don’t worry about it – I appreciate that you read through anyway.

  26. Please do so at my


    address. I too have been meaning to email you about an issue not covered in here.

    pax tecum my friend

    O, and the Holy See, necessarily, has to roll around in sinful structures, owing to its mission but that does not mean it has to roll around without a response fo reven Jesus asked why He was struck

  27. Tony Jokin says:

    I think everyone agrees that we much reach out to sinners. The question becomes what it means to “reach out” and what it means to “encourage and condone”.

    The problem today is that the method the Church uses to reach out condones living in sin. That is because the pastoral policy to stay silent about sin, to ignore sin and look at positives, to try and twist canon law or doctrine to not discriminate against unrepentant and openly/vocally obstinate sinners in the life of the Church, or to join questionable organizations have all resulted condoning of sins to digging a hole for oneself.

    So to use your analogy, the Church signing all the treatise of the UN is somewhat like Jesus joining the Pharisees. Peace can last for sometime between the two but eventually, clashes will abound. By the time the Jesus leaves the Pharisees club, the faithful would already be confused anyway. Questions like was Jesus mistaken when he joined the Pharisee club and heralded it as a great thing? Isn’t it wrong for him to now leave when he finds their demands inconvenient?? Also, these being demands that many of us personally see as what justice demands??

    This is the exact same problem the Vatican will face and is facing. After heralding what a great thing the UN is and how we must be part of it (rolling around together), now the Vatican doesn’t want to follow the advise and admonitions of the UN (rightly so but confusing and contradictory).

    So suffice it to say, the issue here is that the Church is going too far in trying to reach out. She is going so far that even those inside the Church are lead to confusion and she is leaking out the ones already inside. It goes to show that the traditional method of reaching out was the best i.e. send out the well trained missionaries while the faithful laity maintain some distance with heretics (in the sense of those who hold on to and promote heresy) and those who advocate and insist on immorality be normalized. Otherwise, the Church will leak more souls than she will save (empirical evidence is available for anyone who wants to see as we look at a steady decline of the Church since Vatican II “reach out” method kicked in).

  28. Tony Jokin says:

    Thanks Elliot, I appreciate it. I was very frustrated when I wrote it so I think I said a little more than I should have on that particular post.

  29. Dear Mr. Jokin. I keep hoping (The theological Hope; that which begins to exist when rational hope is extinguished) The Holy See will learn to fight back. These most recent unjust attacks ought to be met square on and identified as such publicly and then the Holy See can publicly begin to demand even handed treatment but it can only do these things by standing and fighting publicly.

    I see no reason The Holy See must accept a redefinition of torture by these irksome groups and were I representing the Holy See, I’d ask other countries to back us in fighting the redefinition. Am I wrong in my Hope?

    Prolly, I specialise in error.

    But, I do see Theological Hope in the way our enemies try and disappear us and to silence us. It is ineluctable that the result of the pressure increasing in intensity and frequency will result in either a Diamond or Dust being formed ; and I am banking on the promises of Jesus.

  30. c matt says:

    Me too. Just remember a diamond takes much longer to form than dust.

  31. Tony Jokin says:

    I can see reason for theological hope but you have to understand that this hope does not guarantee that no souls will be lost. The way providence has allowed and arranged things is such that we do have a contribution toward our own salvation and even that of others.

    When the Church prelates make mistakes in “reaching out”, that leads to confusion. Further lack of clarification leads to even more confusion. That can very well lead to the loss of faith (as one could argue it has happened since Vatican II pastoral/dialogue/”reaching out” methodology kicked in).

    I am not sure then that we have theological hope that all is well that ends well. Sure, there is human hope but that isn’t saying too much given how contrary it is to common sense and reason. We only have theological hope that the Church will always survive no matter how down and beaten she may seem. BUT, most of her members might be (and most likely will be as reason and common sense informs us) lost in the meantime. Those lost members could be people we know and love too which makes it nerve racking to just “bear” with what is happening today.

    It is this very issue that is causing tension today between allegiance to the Pope and saving souls. To admire the Pope is difficult when most of our loved ones have repeatedly understood his words to imply something drastic or as confusing. It is hard to stop some of these loved ones from wanting to retreat to a SSPX or Sede chapel and jeopardizing their salvation. In another sense it is hard to stop people we love from doing bad things (like divorce, remarrying, birth control, and even same sex unions) and jeopardizing their salvation.

  32. It is this very issue that is causing tension today between allegiance to the Pope and saving souls. To admire the Pope is difficult when most of our loved ones have repeatedly understood his words to imply something drastic or as confusing. It is hard to stop some of these loved ones from wanting to retreat to a SSPX or Sede chapel and jeopardizing their salvation

    Dear Tony. I agree with every word you wrote and I am one who struggles with what it is I ought to do.

    In any event, I am no model of behavior having whipsawed back and forth twixt Knee Jerk Papalism and Soi disant Traditionalism in the past 30 years. I have changed S/N as often as Mickey Rooney changed wives and I have had more public positions than an accomplished prostitute has sex positions and from the reports that I have read about the latest UN accusations and submissive Holy See response, I have maintained my impeccable track record of advice untarnished by any positive result.

    It has been rather easy for my in my new know-it-all bailiwick owing to a local Parish that is orthodox in belief and praxis (mostly) and has a young Irish Priest who has introduced the St Michael Prayer After Mass and who loves the Traditional Mass and doesn’t grasp why it was abandoned so beware of advice from those like myself who are relatively secure; hell, even the recent Pre-Cana Conference in our Diocese was rock solid.

    I can’t believe I allowed my own self, An Irish-Algonquin, to become a Ms Grundy Catholic; a scold.

    Short of others advising breaking the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority, I have no justification to criticise what others do in defense of the Faith.

    And that is my firm new unchanging position (for this month)

  33. Tony Jokin says:

    I understand. And you are lucky. In my own case, the only thing commendable about my parish is that the priest celebrates the OF in a reverent manner for the most part. Other than that, he hates tradition. But he is leaving and the next priest is more famous for being like “Pope Francis” as the parishioners keep telling me with a smile. If they meant it in a good way, I would be happy but that is not what they mean. I am torn. Do I point out to them how Pope Francis at the very least has only spread confusion by speaking in a wrong fashion (the most charitable thing I can think as opposed to what can be inferred to a reasonable certitude as being the actual position held by the Pope on various issues)?

    It is tough. I have spoken in the past to some friends (who I care about) who view all every faith as being just as good. I have had discussions with them Now things are difficult with them pointing toward how Pope Francis doesn’t think like “I do” and they want to follow the Pope. It is hard to point out anything from Canon law to past documents containing doctrine because they just point out how Pope Francis doesn’t like talking about doctrine (which from what has been said seems to paint such a picture) and breaks certain laws himself.

    And yes, if you are thinking, I have told them that they are misinterpreting the Pope. But their simple reply is that how is it that the Pope is silent? Surely, he knows very well how he is being perceived by everyone and yet he doesn’t seem too concerned or sent out any clarification. Instead, we even have him continue speak highly of persons like Cardinal Kasper whose recent comments should have been censured as being “offensive to pious ears”. How can any reasonable person argue that the world is mistaken about their perception of the Pope? It seems outright unfair to say such a thing.

    So I think there needs to be a humble but open and public request that the Pope clarify things. All this confusion could be resolved by simply coming out and stating the truth in another interview. Instead, everyone is confused and allowed to remain confused as if there is no cost in doing so.

  34. Dear Tony. You note that the Pope’s words need clarification and you wrote that with respect for his office and his person but I almost now desire that we all adopt as our own the observation of Holy See spokesman, Fr. Lombardi:

    “Francis is not so much aiming for precision as shooting the breeze.”

    But you are spot on. What will it profit anything for us to say what Catholic Doctrine is if others can respond; “That is not what the Pope is saying and the Pope is infallible.

    As the Church militant we are required to defend the Faith yet in this ecclesiastical epoch we are destined to fail for we are sheep sans shepherds.

    Just trying to cheer you up….

  35. So, where’s the email?

  36. No hurry. I can be patient

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s