society
“new rights”

A QUESTION OF AMBIGUITY
From the American presidential campaign to debates at the United Nations, “gender identity,” abortion, euthanasia, and the rights of homosexuals have become the issues dividing politics. Above all, they are decisive for the future. Archbishop SILVANO TOMASI, the Holy See’s Observer at the United Nations, explains why.

by Luca Fiore

“Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” declared Hillary Clinton. Promotion of gay rights has become a priority on the political agenda of Barack Obama, in light of the upcoming presidential election in November. Among other measures, the White House will link aid to Third World countries to how they respect the rights of homosexuals. The lobbies that matter are making their power felt, as in the case of Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, happily married and father of three children, who has become an advocate in a campaign for gay marriage. In recent years, so-called “ethical issues” such as abortion, euthanasia, and gay rights to marriage and adoption have become an open battle ground in politics from Washington to Paris, Madrid to London, Rome to Berlin. The ideological conflicts centered on economic issues have been abandoned, and in their place the battle rages on the field of life and family.
The temperature of the debate is rising, and is moving beyond national borders. At the UN, homosexual rights are the order of the day. In January, General Secretary Ban Ki-moon spoke of them in a talk to African nations. The Council for Human Rights will address the issue in its next session in March, returning to the resolution entitled “Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity,” a document that emphasizes concern for “numerous acts of violence and discrimination” against homosexuals. The resolution passed by a majority in last year’s vote and the Council was split: the European and American nations were in favor, while the Arab and African ones were against it. On that occasion, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See at the UN, Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi, underlined the need to respect the rights of all, but sought to warn against the use of ambiguous juridical terms such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” because words are important, above all when speaking of international law.

Archbishop Tomasi, what are the concerns of the Holy See regarding the document approved by the Council on Human Rights?
The problem is that there is no need for new documents. To obtain what is asked in this resolution, it is sufficient that nations respect the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Governments should hold to what they have signed.

You say that the term “sexual orientation” creates confusion in the juridical sphere. Why?
This expression has never been clearly defined in the juridical instruments of the United Nations. A juridical provision becomes difficult to enact without a clear definition of the term referred to.

Wherein lies the ambiguity?
In common usage, “orientation” means the feelings, the attractions that people have. However, law is not focused on feelings, but on behaviors. If we use the term “orientation” in a juridical text, we risk confusing behaviors, which we should rightly be able to distinguish, with inclinations, which cannot be the basis for discrimination. The risk is that by confusing the meanings, one might also be justifying any type of action.

Does the same hold for the expression “gender identity”?
Human sexuality, like every voluntary activity, exists in a moral dimension. It is an activity that places the will at the service of a goal. It is not an “identity.” In other words, sexuality is part of the action, not of the being. People can freely control their own behavior. Certainly, sexuality has profound roots in the personality, but denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to the negation of the freedom of people in this sphere. In the final analysis, this undermines the dignity of people understood as free beings.

Those who propose this terminology say that identity does not always correspond to physical nature...
My body is what it is. I cannot change this given fact by thinking I am different. There is a realism that is characteristic of the Christian tradition: a table is a table, a man is a man, a woman is a woman. If this is clear, then we can discuss and understand the rest to give a human and comprehensive answer.

From the juridical point of view, what is the consequence of confusing “orientation” and “behavior”?
There is the risk that those who oppose the equalization of traditional marriage and cohabitation between same-sex partners can be accused of discriminating against homosexuals or violating a human right. In addition, the sovereignty of the nations is being undermined.

In what sense?
All efforts should be made to ensure that nations respect the dignity of the human person, and thus expect that there be no violence and discrimination. But this need must be balanced with the freedom of peoples, that is, the principle of subsidiarity must be respected. Nations must act upon the responsibilities they embraced in treaties but, at the same time, they cannot be forced by international global decisions to go against what they believe to be the good of the person and the good of the family.

Hillary Clinton affirmed that gay rights and human rights are the same thing. Do you agree with this?
This is a classic example of an ambiguous formulation that lends itself to different readings. If it means that the human person has fundamental rights that must be respected independently of the person’s behavior, then I agree–I cannot commit violence against a person because she or he behaves sexually in a way I do not condone. But we must remember that there are already instruments of international law that can be appealed to, because they refer to all, without distinctions. However, this does not mean that we can create new rights based on particular emotions or feelings that protect minority groups.

What is at stake?
For the Church, marriage between a man and a woman must be acknowledged as the natural, better context for the education of children and the good of society. There is an enormous difference between marriage and the union of two people of the same sex, precisely from the point of view of the contribution the former makes to society. Qualitatively, they are two different realities.

Why has the debate heated up in recent years?
On the one hand, violence and discrimination against homosexuals happen and are unacceptable. On the other hand, there are those who want to promote a different culture, founded on anthropological assumptions different from those proposed by the Church. Today, it is thought that the individual is fulfilled when she or he has taken care of her or his physical, emotional, or intellectual needs or, in other words, there is the conception of an individual turned in upon himself or herself. Instead, the Christian concept of person is the opposite. I reach my satisfaction when I am in relation. The person is in relationship with others and with the other. This openness, then, becomes an openness toward the transcendent.

Thus it is not just a matter of defending the family and marriage...
We are before two ways of looking at the future. If the international public culture moves on the basis of an individualism closed upon itself, it will lead to social consequences that rightly evoke concern. In recent years, there has been growing activism by those who want to make appear normal what is not so. The ethical criterion is drawn not from nature, but from the social conventions shared by the majority. This ethical indifferentism can lead us to disastrous consequences. The question of sexual orientation has become a symbol but, in and of itself, it is not the central question. At stake is a way of conceiving of life, of thinking of civilization and the good of social coexistence.

In the political arena of many countries, so-called “ethical issues” have taken the place of debates on the economy. Why do you think this is so?
I see the origin in the Woodstock philosophy born in the 1960s. Then, protest was no longer articulated in function of social justice, but the emotional satisfaction of the individual. The center of gravity shifted from a communitarian concern to a strictly personal one, with the affirmation of a total freedom that made individuals increasingly more masters of themselves. With the end of the Cold War, today we see that the ideologies of the twentieth century are incapable of expressing a real social proposal and we find ourselves before the paradox that the thought of Woodstock, born of a rejection of the social dimension of the person, today generates demands on the social level.

What is the task of the Church in this debate?
The Church must continue to announce the Gospel. We must reaffirm in a free and unselfish way what human nature is. We have to say again that human beings are not fulfilled merely by the satisfaction of their biological and emotional desires. We have to show this with our lives. We find ourselves in a moment in which Christian testimony finds itself almost back at the starting point.