By Holy See Mission
Intervention of Archbishop
Francis Chullikatt
Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent
Observer of The Holy See to The UN
Third Committee of the 68th
General Assembly
Item 65: Promotion and
Protection of The Rights of ChildrenFriday 18th October, 2013
Mr Chairman:
This year’s Secretary General’s Report on the Status of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child (A/68/257) helpfully draws attention to child
mortality, which goes to the heart of what the Convention in article 6 enshrines
as the child’s “right to life, survival and development”. Indeed, without life,
all other rights are meaningless. It is a cause for encouragement that his Report
concludes that the goal of ending all preventable child deaths is now within our
reach.[1]
Among the key factors for achieving this goal the Report identifies maternal
health.[2] This
is confirmed by the logic of the Convention itself, which affords the child the
right to both pre-natal and post-natal healthcare
(article 24(d)). This provision has meaning only if the unborn baby is first
afforded the right to life and survival. This accords with my Delegation’s
understanding of the Convention’s definition of the term “child”, which article
1 addresses with an explicit terminus ad
quem of 18 years and a terminus a quo implicit in the preamble’s
clear reference to the child’s rights “before and after birth”.
It follows that each child must be accorded in the first place the
right to be born. This is a right, moreover, which must be protected equally – without
discrimination on any grounds, including those of sex or disability or policies
dictated by eugenics. Thus, pre-natal diagnosis undertaken for the purpose of deciding
whether or not the baby will be permitted to be born is inconsistent with the
Convention, which my Delegation regards as the fundamental normative instrument
on the rights of the child. The unborn baby is a member of our human family and
does not belong to a “sub-category of human beings”.
Mr
Chairman:
My Delegation takes a holistic view of both health and education,
identified by this year’s Secretary General’s Report as fundamental to the
State’s obligations. As the Secretary General acknowledged in his previous year’s
Report (A/67/225, paragraph 41): health “extends beyond the physical and mental
well-being of an individual to the spiritual balance and well-being of the
community as a whole”. This includes the duty to take concrete steps to support
parents in their proper role of raising their children, so that, as the
Declaration of the Rights of the Child asserts, each child may be given
“opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him [or
her] to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a
healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.”Mr Chairman:
My Delegation concurs with the
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (A/68/275), that
prevention is a key aspect for the protection of children from sale and sexual
exploitation. In this regard, the Report
devotes significant attention to the indispensable role of the family for the
protection of children. Indeed, “The
family represents the first layer of a protective environment”.[3] Parents, in the first instance, have the
responsibility to secure the conditions of living, necessary for the child’s
life, survival and development.[4] States have the
duty to protect, support and strengthen the family for the best interests of the
child. This is all the more important –
as the Report observes — given that poverty, unemployment, disease, disability
and difficulty in accessing social services as a result of discrimination and
exclusion may affect the ability of parents to care for their children; and
that mental or behavioural disorders, conflicts, substance addiction and
domestic violence may weaken the ability of families to provide a harmonious
and safe environment and make children more likely to engage in risky behaviours.[5]
Mr
Chairman:
While protection of the rights of children
begins with full respect for children themselves at all stages in their
development, from conception onwards, parents, for their part, possess an
indispensable role in their formation and education, and the family is the
proper place for their development, as the Secretary General’s Report
acknowledges.[6]
Defence of the rights of the child requires, as its necessary corollary, defence
of the family, for which the societal benefits are obvious: it is the family,
not the State, that houses our children, feeds them, instructs them, and raises
the next generation of society.
When it comes to the upbringing and education of children, therefore,
the provisions of the Convention cannot disregard the specific rights and responsibilities
of parents. The Convention perfectly reflects the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which in its preamble privileges parents’ “prior right” (article 26.3) in the education of their
children – which is to say, a right prior to that of the State or other actors
– especially in the important arena of religious
liberty which includes human sexuality, marriage and the statute of the family.
With specific regard to “physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development”
(article 27, CRC), the Convention (article 18.1) similarly privileges parents
with the “primary responsibility” for their children’s upbringing. These rights
and responsibilities of parents in international law are the bulwark of their
fundamental right to freedom of religion (art. 14, CRC) in regard to which parents
are entirely entitled to choose schools “other than those established by the
public authorities, [inclusive of home schooling], which conform to such
minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and
to ensure the religious and moral education of their child [] in conformity
with their own convictions” (art.13.3, ICESCR).
Mr Chairman:
In light of the recent output of the Committee on the Rights of the
Child, my Delegation would like to address some elements of General Comments 14
and 15. These Comments, my Delegation must point out respectfully, represent only
the opinions of the Committee; they do not constitute agreed language and lack all
force of judicial precedence. Whatever is contained within them that is not
consistent with the normative text of the Convention and other international
instruments constitutes a disservice to the best interests of children. Expressions
such as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” (General Comment No. 14
[2013], par. 55, and No. 15 [2013], par. 8)), on which no international juridical
consensus exists, are used spuriously and very unfortunately in these Comments.
The recommendations, for example, States submit children to education and direction on sexual health, contraception
and so-called “safe” abortion (par. 31) without the consent of their parents,
caregiver or guardian; abortion be promoted by States as a family planning
method (par. 54, 56, 70), and so-called “sexual and reproductive health
information or services” be provided by States, irrespective of providers’
conscientious objections (par. 69). Such recommendations are particularly
reprehensible. No abortion is ever “safe” because it kills the life of the child
and harms the mother.
The Holy See
strongly urges the Committee to revise its General Comments in conformity with its
guiding international instruments: beginning with the Convention itself, which
affirms the right to life of the c
Copyright © 2015-2021 The Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations