|
Pope Benedict XVI- Apostolic Journey to USA |
Address
to the General Assembly of the United Nations
"Human Rights ... Must Be Respected As an Expression of Justice"
New York City, USA
April 18, 2008
www.zenit.org
Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As I begin my address to this Assembly, I would like first of
all to express to you, Mr President, my sincere gratitude for
your kind words. My thanks go also to the Secretary-General, Mr
Ban Ki-moon, for inviting me to visit the headquarters of this
Organization and for the welcome that he has extended to me. I
greet the Ambassadors and Diplomats from the Member States, and
all those present. Through you, I greet the peoples who are
represented here. They look to this institution to carry forward
the founding inspiration to establish a "centre for harmonizing
the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends"
of peace and development (cf. Charter of the United Nations,
article 1.2-1.4). As Pope John Paul II expressed it in 1995, the
Organization should be "a moral centre where all the nations of
the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being,
as it were, a ‘family of nations’" (Address to the General
Assembly of the United Nations on the 50th Anniversary of its
Foundation, New York, 5 October 1995, 14).
Through the United Nations, States have established universal
objectives which, even if they do not coincide with the total
common good of the human family, undoubtedly represent a
fundamental part of that good. The founding principles of the
Organization -- the desire for peace, the quest for justice,
respect for the dignity of the person, humanitarian cooperation
and assistance -- express the just aspirations of the human
spirit, and constitute the ideals which should underpin
international relations. As my predecessors Paul VI and John
Paul II have observed from this very podium, all this is
something that the Catholic Church and the Holy See follow
attentively and with interest, seeing in your activity an
example of how issues and conflicts concerning the world
community can be subject to common regulation. The United
Nations embodies the aspiration for a "greater degree of
international ordering" (John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,
43), inspired and governed by the principle of subsidiarity, and
therefore capable of responding to the demands of the human
family through binding international rules and through
structures capable of harmonizing the day-to-day unfolding of
the lives of peoples. This is all the more necessary at a time
when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral
consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still
subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world’s
problems call for interventions in the form of collective action
by the international community.
Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of
local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of
resources and of the climate, require all international leaders
to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith,
respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest
regions of the planet. I am thinking especially of those
countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on
the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore
at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of
globalization. In the context of international relations, it is
necessary to recognize the higher role played by rules and
structures that are intrinsically ordered to promote the common
good, and therefore to safeguard human freedom. These
regulations do not limit freedom. On the contrary, they promote
it when they prohibit behaviour and actions which work against
the common good, curb its effective exercise and hence
compromise the dignity of every human person. In the name of
freedom, there has to be a correlation between rights and
duties, by which every person is called to assume responsibility
for his or her choices, made as a consequence of entering into
relations with others. Here our thoughts turn also to the way
the results of scientific research and technological advances
have sometimes been applied. Notwithstanding the enormous
benefits that humanity can gain, some instances of this
represent a clear violation of the order of creation, to the
point where not only is the sacred character of life
contradicted, but the human person and the family are robbed of
their natural identity. Likewise, international action to
preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on
earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and
science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of
creation. This never requires a choice to be made between
science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a
scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical
imperatives.
Recognition of the unity of the human family, and attention to
the innate dignity of every man and woman, today find renewed
emphasis in the principle of the responsibility to protect. This
has only recently been defined, but it was already present
implicitly at the origins of the United Nations, and is now
increasingly characteristic of its activity. Every State has the
primary duty to protect its own population from grave and
sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the
consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or
man-made. If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the
international community must intervene with the juridical means
provided in the United Nations Charter and in other
international instruments. The action of the international
community and its institutions, provided that it respects the
principles undergirding the international order, should never be
interpreted as an unwarranted imposition or a limitation of
sovereignty. On the contrary, it is indifference or failure to
intervene that do the real damage. What is needed is a deeper
search for ways of pre-empting and managing conflicts by
exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention
and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or
desire for reconciliation.
The principle of "responsibility to protect" was considered by
the ancient "ius gentium" as the foundation of every action
taken by those in government with regard to the governed: at the
time when the concept of national sovereign States was first
developing, the Dominican Friar Francisco de Vitoria, rightly
considered as a precursor of the idea of the United Nations,
described this responsibility as an aspect of natural reason
shared by all nations, and the result of an international order
whose task it was to regulate relations between peoples. Now, as
then, this principle has to invoke the idea of the person as
image of the Creator, the desire for the absolute and the
essence of freedom. The founding of the United Nations, as we
know, coincided with the profound upheavals that humanity
experienced when reference to the meaning of transcendence and
natural reason was abandoned, and in consequence, freedom and
human dignity were grossly violated. When this happens, it
threatens the objective foundations of the values inspiring and
governing the international order and it undermines the cogent
and inviolable principles formulated and consolidated by the
United Nations. When faced with new and insistent challenges, it
is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to
determining "common ground", minimal in content and weak in its
effect.
This reference to human dignity, which is the foundation and
goal of the responsibility to protect, leads us to the theme we
are specifically focusing upon this year, which marks the
sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. This document was the outcome of a convergence of
different religious and cultural traditions, all of them
motivated by the common desire to place the human person at the
heart of institutions, laws and the workings of society, and to
consider the human person essential for the world of culture,
religion and science. Human rights are increasingly being
presented as the common language and the ethical substratum of
international relations. At the same time, the universality,
indivisibility and interdependence of human rights all serve as
guarantees safeguarding human dignity. It is evident, though,
that the rights recognized and expounded in the Declaration
apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person,
who remains the high-point of God’s creative design for the
world and for history. They are based on the natural law
inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and
civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would
mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic
conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of
rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the
name of different cultural, political, social and even religious
outlooks. This great variety of viewpoints must not be allowed
to obscure the fact that not only rights are universal, but so
too is the human person, the subject of those rights.
[The Pope continued in English]
The life of the community, both domestically and
internationally, clearly demonstrates that respect for rights,
and the guarantees that follow from them, are measures of the
common good that serve to evaluate the relationship between
justice and injustice, development and poverty, security and
conflict. The promotion of human rights remains the most
effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between
countries and social groups, and for increasing security.
Indeed, the victims of hardship and despair, whose human dignity
is violated with impunity, become easy prey to the call to
violence, and they can then become violators of peace.
The common good that human rights help to accomplish cannot,
however, be attained merely by applying correct procedures, nor
even less by achieving a balance between competing rights. The
merit of the Universal Declaration is that it has enabled
different cultures, juridical expressions and institutional
models to converge around a fundamental nucleus of values, and
hence of rights. Today, though, efforts need to be redoubled in
the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the
Declaration and to compromise its inner unity so as to
facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity
towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular
interests. The Declaration was adopted as a "common standard of
achievement" (Preamble) and cannot be applied piecemeal,
according to trends or selective choices that merely run the
risk of contradicting the unity of the human person and thus the
indivisibility of human rights.
Experience shows that legality often prevails over justice when
the insistence upon rights makes them appear as the exclusive
result of legislative enactments or normative decisions taken by
the various agencies of those in power. When presented purely in
terms of legality, rights risk becoming weak propositions
divorced from the ethical and rational dimension which is their
foundation and their goal. The Universal Declaration, rather,
has reinforced the conviction that respect for human rights is
principally rooted in unchanging justice, on which the binding
force of international proclamations is also based. This aspect
is often overlooked when the attempt is made to deprive rights
of their true function in the name of a narrowly utilitarian
perspective. Since rights and the resulting duties follow
naturally from human interaction, it is easy to forget that they
are the fruit of a commonly held sense of justice built
primarily upon solidarity among the members of society, and
hence valid at all times and for all peoples. This intuition was
expressed as early as the fifth century by Augustine of Hippo,
one of the masters of our intellectual heritage. He taught that
the saying: Do not do to others what you would not want done to
you "cannot in any way vary according to the different
understandings that have arisen in the world" (De Doctrina
Christiana, III, 14). Human rights, then, must be respected as
an expression of justice, and not merely because they are
enforceable through the will of the legislators.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As history proceeds, new situations arise, and the attempt is
made to link them to new rights. Discernment, that is, the
capacity to distinguish good from evil, becomes even more
essential in the context of demands that concern the very lives
and conduct of persons, communities and peoples. In tackling the
theme of rights, since important situations and profound
realities are involved, discernment is both an indispensable and
a fruitful virtue.
Discernment, then, shows that entrusting exclusively to
individual States, with their laws and institutions, the final
responsibility to meet the aspirations of persons, communities
and entire peoples, can sometimes have consequences that exclude
the possibility of a social order respectful of the dignity and
rights of the person. On the other hand, a vision of life firmly
anchored in the religious dimension can help to achieve this,
since recognition of the transcendent value of every man and
woman favours conversion of heart, which then leads to a
commitment to resist violence, terrorism and war, and to promote
justice and peace. This also provides the proper context for the
inter-religious dialogue that the United Nations is called to
support, just as it supports dialogue in other areas of human
activity. Dialogue should be recognized as the means by which
the various components of society can articulate their point of
view and build consensus around the truth concerning particular
values or goals. It pertains to the nature of religions, freely
practised, that they can autonomously conduct a dialogue of
thought and life. If at this level, too, the religious sphere is
kept separate from political action, then great benefits ensue
for individuals and communities. On the other hand, the United
Nations can count on the results of dialogue between religions,
and can draw fruit from the willingness of believers to place
their experiences at the service of the common good. Their task
is to propose a vision of faith not in terms of intolerance,
discrimination and conflict, but in terms of complete respect
for truth, coexistence, rights, and reconciliation.
Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious
freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at
once individual and communitarian – a vision that brings out the
unity of the person while clearly distinguishing between the
dimension of the citizen and that of the believer. The activity
of the United Nations in recent years has ensured that public
debate gives space to viewpoints inspired by a religious vision
in all its dimensions, including ritual, worship, education,
dissemination of information and the freedom to profess and
choose religion. It is inconceivable, then, that believers
should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in
order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to
deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights. The rights associated
with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are
considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with
majority religious positions of an exclusive nature. The full
guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free
exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the
public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of
believers playing their part in building the social order.
Indeed, they actually do so, for example through their
influential and generous involvement in a vast network of
initiatives which extend from Universities, scientific
institutions and schools to health care agencies and charitable
organizations in the service of the poorest and most
marginalized. Refusal to recognize the contribution to society
that is rooted in the religious dimension and in the quest for
the Absolute – by its nature, expressing communion between
persons – would effectively privilege an individualistic
approach, and would fragment the unity of the person.
My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United
Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the
Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between
States and an instrument of service to the entire human family.
It also demonstrates the willingness of the Catholic Church to
offer her proper contribution to building international
relations in a way that allows every person and every people to
feel they can make a difference. In a manner that is consistent
with her contribution in the ethical and moral sphere and the
free activity of her faithful, the Church also works for the
realization of these goals through the international activity of
the Holy See. Indeed, the Holy See has always had a place at the
assemblies of the Nations, thereby manifesting its specific
character as a subject in the international domain. As the
United Nations recently confirmed, the Holy See thereby makes
its contribution according to the dispositions of international
law, helps to define that law, and makes appeal to it.
The United Nations remains a privileged setting in which the
Church is committed to contributing her experience "of
humanity", developed over the centuries among peoples of every
race and culture, and placing it at the disposal of all members
of the international community. This experience and activity,
directed towards attaining freedom for every believer, seeks
also to increase the protection given to the rights of the
person. Those rights are grounded and shaped by the transcendent
nature of the person, which permits men and women to pursue
their journey of faith and their search for God in this world.
Recognition of this dimension must be strengthened if we are to
sustain humanity’s hope for a better world and if we are to
create the conditions for peace, development, cooperation, and
guarantee of rights for future generations.
In my recent Encyclical, Spe Salvi, I indicated that "every
generation has the task of engaging anew in the arduous search
for the right way to order human affairs" (no. 25). For
Christians, this task is motivated by the hope drawn from the
saving work of Jesus Christ. That is why the Church is happy to
be associated with the activity of this distinguished
Organization, charged with the responsibility of promoting peace
and good will throughout the earth. Dear Friends, I thank you
for this opportunity to address you today, and I promise you of
the support of my prayers as you pursue your noble task.
Before I take my leave from this distinguished Assembly, I
should like to offer my greetings, in the official languages, to
all the Nations here represented.
Peace and Prosperity with God’s help!
[The Pope repeated the above greeting in French, Spanish, Arab,
Chinese and Russian]
Peace and Prosperity with God’s help!
© Copyright 2008 -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Look
at the One they Pierced!
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
