Ambassadors walk out of UN meeting over new sexual rights agenda

SPUC reports from Geneva

A large group of ambassadors walked out of a United Nations (UN) meeting yesterday in Geneva in protest at a concerted attempt to create new sexual rights. SPUC, as a UN-recognised non-governmental organisation (NGO), was present at yesterday’s meeting. SPUC upholds the family based on natural (i.e. heterosexual) marriage because of its protective effect for both unborn and born children.

Patrick Buckley, who represented SPUC in Geneva, reports:

“The panel discussion had been arranged by the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. The discussion was entitled “Ending violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity”. The panel chosen for the discussion was unanimous in its support for expanding universally-accepted human rights norms to include the novel concepts of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’.

The ambassadors of the Arab Group and of the Organisation of Islamic States (OIC) walked out once the discussion began. Delegates chosen by the Arab Group and the OIC also walked out after delivering strongly-worded statements.

A clear divide was evident between those nations which want to invent new so-called rights and those nations who reject the concept of establishing new so-called rights. There is no international consensus on the meaning of the terms ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’. The EU, the US, Canada, Australia and some South American countries support an expansion of rights, in contrast to the Russian Federation, most African countries, the Holy See, the Arab Group and the OIC.

Saeed Sarwar, the Pakistani delegate speaking on behalf of the OIC Group, told the discussion:

‘The international community only recognizes those rights that are enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which were codified in subsequent international human rights instruments. Thus, we strongly condemn systematic attempts by a group of states to introduce the notion of ‘sexual orientation’ …  Our opposition to the notion of sexual orientation also stems from the fact that it may encompass the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts, including pedophilia and incest.’

Time was not given to the Holy See to make a statement. Only non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which support the sexual rights agenda were called to make a statement.

The bias shown by the Human Rights Council in Geneva yesterday reflects the Council’s ideological commitment to the Western homosexual agenda. We are witnessing the imposition of a socio-political agenda, enforced by UN bureaucrats, on all nations regardless of cultural or other norms. The Council wants to manipulate states into engaging in public propaganda campaigns, in order to achieve its political ambitions to change society according to its own whims and prejudices. There is no fundamental right to homosexual practices.”

This entry was posted in Catholic Moral Teaching, Pro Life and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Ambassadors walk out of UN meeting over new sexual rights agenda

  1. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Yet, I understand that Catholics calling for a ban on a lesbian receiving Communion are violating tradition and canon law. And we recall the recently discussed incident at a funeral in the US when a lesbian mourner was refused communion.

    Lesbianism is regarded as alchoholism is – as a disorder. Communion may not be refused in such circumstances.


  2. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Above, interesting to note the group in agreement here

    The Russian Federation, The Holy See, African countries, the Arab Group, and the Organisation of Islamic States.

    Maybe there will be less suspicion towards some of these countries now? Hmmmm….

    How things have changed in a few years!


  3. The Raven says:

    You mean the Buddhist lady who’d told the priest that she was living in a state of unrepentant mortal sin and is now pursuing a vendetta against the priest in question?


  4. afmm says:

    The lesbian mourner made a point of introducing her ‘lover’ to the priest in Maryland officiating at the funeral. A Catholic priest cannot repeat cannot give Communion to a person who he knows is living in sin — a state which the mourner openly proclaimed. Now she is trying to get the priest fired! for obeying Church law. One sincerely hopes she will fail.


  5. JabbaPapa says:

    huh !! You’re right, Raven — this woman is not a Catholic, and is indeed an apostate !!

    She has no right therefore to receive Communion, because she can be seen as excommunicatio latae sententiae, regardless of her sexuality.


  6. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Don’t tell me, take it to the canon lawyers. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    And Af, I hope she fails too, in her bid to get the priest sacked as I have previously said.


  7. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Af, Raven and Jabba are canonical outlaws. Jabba will tell us if there are further charges to be brought against the CP&S Three in this matter. I say “Free the CP&S Three.”

    Look folks, you can’t decide these matters based on gut instinct and prejudice. That can only lead to tears.

    I humbly suggest that you look for guidance to canon law, which regards lesbianism as a disorder, as said, like alcoholism.

    One realises that such issues infuriate the Daily Mail reader, but not you good folk.


  8. kathleen says:

    According to an article in CNA, Fr. Marcel Guarnizo has been removed from ministry!!!

    It is absolutely scandalous what is being done to this good and holy priest for avoiding a sacrilege i.e. permitting the Blessed Sacrament to be received unworthily….. (although unfortunately the woman defiantly did then receive it from the Eucharistic minister!)
    I wish the Vatican would intervene here, as Fr. Guarnizo seems to have been let down by his own Bishop and Archdiocese.

    Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response to the Eucharistic Incident:
    I would like to begin by once again sending my condolences to the Johnson family on the death of Mrs. Loetta Johnson.

    I also feel obliged to answer questions from my parishioners, as well as from the public, about the incident on February 25th.

    Here are the facts: On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning.

    The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m. From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament.

    A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover”. Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms.Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused.

    I understand and agree it is the policy of the Archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life.

    In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.

    If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.

    In all of the above circumstances, I would have been placed in a similar uncomfortable position. Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so. (In fact Ms. Johnson promptly chose to go to the Eucharistic minister to receive communion and did so.) There was no scandal, no “public reprimand” and no small lecture as some have reported……”

    For the full statement:

    As I said once before, I wouldn’t be surprised to find the powerful ‘gay lobby’ behind this whole spiteful and calculated attack on a faithful priest of the Catholic Church.


  9. toadspittle says:

    .Good deal of judging going on here, we see. Still that’s our job on CP&S, is it not?

    “The lesbian mourner made a point of introducing her ‘lover’ to the priest in Maryland officiating at the funeral…”
    Says afmm. Just can’t get away from these naughty old Lesbians, can we?
    Though it might be a bit hasty to automatically assume, from this, that sex was involved.
    We are all commanded to love one another.

    Luckily, as Toad has pointed out before, we are under no obligation to like one another.


  10. JabbaPapa says:

    Look folks, you can’t decide these matters based on gut instinct and prejudice. That can only lead to tears.

    “Prejudice” ??? Really ???!!?? Whose ?

    Is it “prejudice” to point out that Buddhists may not partake of the Eucharist ?

    Individual sexuality in itself is not preventative, and I would have appreciated it if you had refrained from making it appear that I had suggested otherwise.


  11. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    You’re right Jabba about the Buddhist bit.

    But you forget that I was only referring to canon law on lesbianism – communion may not be refused on those grounds. Please stick to the main issue if you can.

    And look! I was right about the tears.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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