You might think Catholics and human rights lawyers should have a good deal in common. The political idea of universal rights beyond curtailment by secular powers certainly seems to chime neatly with the Christian doctrine of the unconditional preciousness of each individual as a being made in the image of God.
Indeed, at one time this was probably so. The religious thinking behind much of, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 or the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950 is fairly obvious.
But no longer, it seems.
If you want proof that, despite theoretical support for religious freedom, the twenty-first century human rights zeitgeist now sees faith as more an obstacle to progress than a handmaid of humanity, you need look no further than a report that came out near the end of February from the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner Dunja Mijatović. Entitled “Sexual and reproductive health and rights in Europe”, it should be noted that the commissioner’s bailiwick still includes post-Brexit UK.
The document could have been produced by the Marie Stopes Foundation that champions contraception and abortion. It calls in the name of human rights for many things. LGBTI-inclusive sex education must be force-fed to all children in all schools whatever their parents’ conscientious view may be. Contraception must be freely available for teens of all ages: it is seen as shocking that some unenlightened states “still require parental consent for adolescents under the ages of 16 or 18″.
Abortion must be entirely decriminalised and made free of charge, its availability guaranteed in priority to conscientious objection by doctors, and with clinics providing it protected by “safe access” (i.e. no-protest) zones. Supporters of these ideas need taxpayer funds; while the funding of organisations opposed to them, as happens in some apparently backward countries, should stop. And so on.
The obvious point about this is that it is not only remarkably partisan – presenting itself as ostensibly a dispassionate call for respect for human rights, it was actually prepared by members of a far-from-uncommitted pressure group called the Center for Reproductive Rights – but also about as unwelcome to the Catholic conscience as you can get.
But there is much more to it than that. A reading of the report also shows that today the thinking behind much of human rights promotion has long departed from being religion-friendly, and isn’t even religion-neutral, rather its pretty clearly anti-Christian.
On an individual level, for example, the report turns on its head the view that sexuality might be a gift with some strings attached, to be used not wantonly but instead to promote other goods, whether in terms of procreation, affection between spouses, or whatever. But no, certainly not: the State must, it seems, regard sex as merely a source of utilitarian pleasure not tied to any further good or higher purpose apart from mere indulgence.
There is no place, clearly, for any other convincing interpretation of such demands for free no-questions-asked dispensation of contraceptives to very young teenagers or the subjection of all children to state-promoted Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) lessons promoting the view of sex as indulgence whatever their families may think of the matter, or for the clear implication that the state must defund and marginalise organisations opposed to homosexual practices.
Secondly, it seems to have little time for the idea that institutions such as the family may exist for more than social-utilitarian purposes. Take the obvious but essential spiritual notion (by no means unique to Catholicism) that families exist to guide children carefully and ensure as far as they can that they grow up with sound and proper ideas about sexuality and its place in the divine scheme. There is not a sign of this.
On the contrary: the Commissioner seems to see parents largely as physical begetters and rearers of youngsters. Certainly any efforts by parents to control, or even know about, such matters as the giving of contraceptives to their offspring, or to have a say in how they are educated in matters of sexual morality seem to be viewed mainly as obstructions to some fundamental individualistic right of sexual self-expression and experimentation.
These are mere examples; but behind them there is a wider and much more important point. Human rights-related thought has undergone a subtle change. Seventy-five years ago, it was in essence an accompaniment to religious and moral sensitivities, and a guide to how social institutions should develop so as to enable each person to reach a proper idea of the good.
Today, it sees itself completely differently, as something of such fundamental importance that it needs to be taken as a given and placed above governments, politics and religious sensibilities. In short, it is almost now seeing itself as a religion in its own right, to which other institutions need to bend.
This is why, at least for the moment, the faithful need to think quite carefully before making common cause with the human rights establishment. And if they find themselves wavering, they should quietly think about the First and Second Commandments. Both have a good deal to say on the matter. Photo: Detail from ‘Sermon and Deeds of the Antichrist’ by Signorelli.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.