Abortion Proponents Aim to Oust the Holy See from the UN 7

According to a recent report from the Catholic News Agency, “Catholics for Choice” is once again seeking to end the Holy See’s permanent observer status at the United Nations.

Catholics for Choice is an abortion advocacy group that promotes teachings contrary to the Catholic Church. The American Bishops have repeatedly warned that they are “not a Catholic organization.”

On January 16, the abortionist group’s president, John O’Brien, argued that the Holy See does not deserve the status of a state at the United Nations. “The Holy See has no right to a seat at the U.N.,” he declared, “and should not be signing these treaties and conventions.”

In response, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute launched a declaration and petition, on Jan. 17, to defend the Holy See against O’Brien’s attacks. The petition, drafted by Princeton Law School professor Robert P. George and William Saunders of Americans United for Life, gained over 3,000 signatures in just 3 days.

The Holy See has diplomatic relations with 177 countries and has been involved in international diplomacy since the 4th Century. Its interest is non-partisan, and its mission in the U.N. is to protect the dignity of the human person and defend the rights of women, children, and families throughout the world.

Signatories of the petition observe that the efforts of abortionist groups to remove the Holy See from the U.N. are deplorable. These false liberation groups, “seek to undermine central truths regarding the nature of the human person and of the family. In the name of a false doctrine of human rights, they deny what makes men truly human and violate true human rights,” the document declared.

While Vatican supporters at the U.N. do not always agree with Catholic Church’s positions and policies, they still recognize that the Holy See is an important obstacle to certain groups’ “goals of re-engineering humanity and revising basic moral understandings.” In this regard, the document adds:

“The world would be far poorer if the voice of the Holy See within the United Nations were ever silenced. May that day never come.”

You can view the full petition at www.defendtheholysee.org.


  1. To bad These members of abortion groups in the UN do not know the true meaning of freedom that the church has proclaimed from the beginning. We pray that each member comes to know the ‘Truth that sets them free’! Then peace will come.

    • Pope John XXIII wrote that “Another word for peace is development.” By helping people, families, and nations to develop with the right resources and support, we can help them achieve integral peace in their lives. Another word for this is Charity. The groups that try to influence through control (e.g., population control) and social engineering are trying to force systems that stifle development and oppress people. It is important for them to hear the Church’s voice so they may change their hearts and form a more sincere conscience.

      Thanks Madeline!

    • Here’s the thing: if everyone in the UN had the same opinion in the first place, why would we need the UN? If we can just say, “You don’t belong here,” only because your opinion is different form ours, that’s the voice of tyranny, not democracy. Pluralism, the type which the UN presupposes, only works when there is a healthy diversity of opinion to begin with. Observe also, that the Holy See may have a different opinion than other members in the UN, but it only proposes its views there, it does not impose them. Now, does the UN influence only by imposing its vision on the world? I would say that it does not. If it did, think about what kind of government that would be… Sounds to me like the type that could use varying opinions in making its decisions before it simply imposed its will on the rest of the world. Would you want to be ruled by a one world system that only accepted one opinion, forced out others, and then imposed its view that way? What would you call that type of system? Personally, I’m glad the UN does not work that way. Let’s pray that it never does.

      Remember that the Holy See was the strongest voice warning against the invasion of Iraq, and the majority of the UN also held that opinion, although the US opposed it, and went ahead with the attack against the strong warning of the UN. Now, in that case, would you say that the US should be removed from the UN, or would you prefer that only one voice, i.e., that of America, determined the will of the UN? I, personally, would not be satisfied with either either of those two options. But if we had to chose one of those two options, we are then faced with another hard question: Whose single opinion should we prefer to set the entire tone for the United Nations? Russia? China? Who? Because if we simply remove members because they hold a different opinion, eventually there will be only one ruling opinion left. Again, that’s tyranny. Most people don’t like that, but it would not matter in the end, because their opinion wouldn’t count.

      This issue isn’t about opinion; it’s about disregard for it. And that’s not good. That’s called bullying. That’s what’s going on here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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