MEETING WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION
ADDRESS OF
HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
New
York
Friday, 18 April 2008
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 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!
Paix et prospérité, avec l’aide
de Dieu!
Paz y
prosperidad con la ayuda de Dios!
سَلامٌ وَإزْدِهَارٌ بعَوْن ِ الله ِ!
因著天主的幫助願大家 得享平安和繁榮 !
Мира и
благоденствия
с помощью
Боҗией!
Thank you very much.
* * *
Monsieur le Président,
Mesdames et Messieurs,
En m’adressant à cette Assemblée,
j’aimerais avant tout vous exprimer, Monsieur le Président, ma vive
reconnaissance pour vos aimables paroles. Ma gratitude va aussi au Secrétaire
général, Monsieur Ban Ki-moon, qui m’a invité à venir visiter le Siège central
de l’Organisation, et pour l’accueil qu’il m’a réservé. Je salue les
Ambassadeurs et les diplomates des Pays membres et toutes les personnes
présentes. À travers vous, je salue les peuples que vous représentez ici. Ils
attendent de cette institution qu’elle mette en œuvre son inspiration
fondatrice, à savoir constituer un « centre pour la coordination de l’activité
des Nations unies en vue de parvenir à la réalisation des fins communes » de
paix et de développement (cf. Charte des Nations unies, art. 1.2-1.4). Comme le
Pape Jean-Paul II l’exprimait en 1995, l’Organisation devrait être un « centre
moral, où toutes les nations du monde se sentent chez elles, développant la
conscience commune d’être, pour ainsi dire, une famille de nations » (Message à l’Assemblée
générale des Nations unies pour le 50e anniversaire de la fondation, New York, 5 octobre
1995).
À travers les Nations unies, les
États ont établi des objectifs universels qui, même s’ils ne coïncident pas
avec la totalité du bien commun de la famille humaine, n’en représentent pas
moins une part fondamentale. Les principes fondateurs de l’Organisation – le
désir de paix, le sens de la justice, le respect de la dignité de la personne,
la coopération et l’assistance humanitaires – sont l’expression des justes
aspirations de l’esprit humain et constituent les idéaux qui devraient
sous-tendre les relations internationales. Comme mes prédécesseurs Paul VI et
Jean-Paul II l’ont affirmé depuis cette même tribune, tout cela fait partie de
réalités que l'Église catholique et le Saint-Siège considèrent avec attention
et intérêt, voyant dans votre activité un exemple de la manière dont les
problèmes et les conflits qui concernent la communauté mondiale peuvent
bénéficier d’une régulation commune. Les Nations unies concrétisent
l’aspiration à « un degré supérieur d’organisation à l’échelle internationale »
(Jean-Paul II, Encycl. Sollicitudo rei socialis, n. 43), qui doit être
inspiré et guidé par le principe de subsidiarité et donc être capable de
répondre aux exigences de la famille humaine, grâce à des règles
internationales efficaces et à la mise en place de structures aptes à assurer
le déroulement harmonieux de la vie quotidienne des peuples. Cela est d’autant
plus nécessaire dans le contexte actuel où l’on fait l’expérience du paradoxe
évident d’un consensus multilatéral qui continue à être en crise parce qu’il
est encore subordonné aux décisions d’un petit nombre, alors que les problèmes
du monde exigent, de la part de la communauté internationale, des interventions
sous forme d’actions communes.
En effet, les questions de
sécurité, les objectifs de développement, la réduction des inégalités au niveau
local et mondial, la protection de l’environnement, des ressources et du
climat, requièrent que tous les responsables de la vie internationale agissent
de concert et soient prêts à travailler en toute bonne foi, dans le respect du
droit, pour promouvoir la solidarité dans les zones les plus fragiles de la
planète. Je pense en particulier à certains pays d’Afrique et d’autres
continents qui restent encore en marge d’un authentique développement intégral,
et qui risquent ainsi de ne faire l’expérience que des effets négatifs de la
mondialisation. Dans le contexte des relations internationales, il faut
reconnaître le rôle primordial des règles et des structures qui, par nature,
sont ordonnées à la promotion du bien commun et donc à la sauvegarde de la
liberté humaine. Ces régulations ne limitent pas la liberté. Au contraire,
elles la promeuvent quand elles interdisent des comportements et des actions
qui vont à l’encontre du bien commun, qui entravent son exercice effectif et
qui compromettent donc la dignité de toute personne humaine. Au nom de la
liberté, il doit y avoir une corrélation entre droits et devoirs, en fonction
desquels toute personne est appelée à prendre ses responsabilités dans les
choix qu’elle opère, en tenant compte des relations tissées avec les autres.
Nous pensons ici à la manière dont les résultats de la recherche scientifique
et des avancées technologiques ont parfois été utilisés. Tout en reconnaissant
les immenses bénéfices que l’humanité peut en tirer, certaines de leurs
applications représentent une violation évidente de l’ordre de la création, au
point non seulement d’être en contradiction avec le caractère sacré de la vie,
mais d’arriver à priver la personne humaine et la famille de leur identité
naturelle. De la même manière, l’action internationale visant à préserver
l’environnement et à protéger les différentes formes de vie sur la terre doit
non seulement garantir un usage rationnel de la technologie et de la science,
mais doit aussi redécouvrir l’authentique image de la création. Il ne s’agira
jamais de devoir choisir entre science et éthique, mais bien plutôt d’adopter
une méthode scientifique qui soit véritablement respectueuse des impératifs
éthiques.
La reconnaissance de l’unité de
la famille humaine et l’attention portée à la dignité innée de toute femme et
de tout homme reçoivent aujourd’hui un nouvel élan dans le principe de la
responsabilité de protéger. Il n’a été défini que récemment, mais il était déjà
implicitement présent dès les origines des Nations unies et, actuellement, il
caractérise toujours davantage son activité. Tout État a le devoir primordial
de protéger sa population contre les violations graves et répétées des droits
de l’homme, de même que des conséquences de crises humanitaires liées à des
causes naturelles ou provoquées par l’action de l’homme. S’il arrive que les
États ne soient pas en mesure d’assurer une telle protection, il revient à la
communauté internationale d’intervenir avec les moyens juridiques prévus par la
Charte des Nations unies et par d’autres instruments internationaux. L’action
de la communauté internationale et de ses institutions, dans la mesure où elle
est respectueuse des principes qui fondent l’ordre international, ne devrait
jamais être interprétée comme une coercition injustifiée ou comme une
limitation de la souveraineté. À l’inverse, c’est l’indifférence ou la
non-intervention qui causent de réels dommages. Il faut réaliser une étude
approfondie des modalités pour prévenir et gérer les conflits, en utilisant
tous les moyens dont dispose l’action diplomatique et en accordant attention et
soutien même au plus léger signe de dialogue et de volonté de réconciliation.
Le principe de la «
responsabilité de protéger » était considéré par l’antique ius gentium
comme le fondement de toute action entreprise par l’autorité envers ceux qui
sont gouvernés par elle : à l’époque où le concept d’État national souverain
commençait à se développer, le religieux dominicain Francisco De Vitoria,
considéré à juste titre comme un précurseur de l’idée des Nations unies,
décrivait cette responsabilité comme un aspect de la raison naturelle partagé
par toutes les nations, et le fruit d’un droit international dont la tâche
était de réguler les relations entre les peuples. Aujourd’hui comme alors, un
tel principe doit faire apparaître l’idée de personne comme image du Créateur,
ainsi que le désir d’absolu et l’essence de la liberté. Le fondement des
Nations unies, nous le savons bien, a coïncidé avec les profonds
bouleversements dont a souffert l’humanité lorsque la référence au sens de la
transcendance et à la raison naturelle a été abandonnée et que par conséquent
la liberté et la dignité humaine furent massivement violées. Dans de telles
circonstances, cela menace les fondements objectifs des valeurs qui inspirent
et régulent l’ordre international et cela mine les principes intangibles et
coercitifs formulés et consolidés par les Nations unies. Face à des défis
nouveaux répétés, c’est une erreur de se retrancher derrière une approche
pragmatique, limitée à mettre en place des « bases communes », dont le contenu
est minimal et dont l’efficacité est faible.
La référence à la dignité
humaine, fondement et fin de la responsabilité de protéger, nous introduit dans
la note spécifique de cette année, qui marque le soixantième anniversaire de la
Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’homme. Ce document était le
fruit d’une convergence de différentes traditions culturelles et religieuses,
toutes motivées par le désir commun de mettre la personne humaine au centre des
institutions, des lois et de l’action des sociétés, et de la considérer comme
essentielle pour le monde de la culture, de la religion et de la science. Les
droits de l’homme sont toujours plus présentés comme le langage commun et le
substrat éthique des relations internationales. Tout comme leur universalité,
leur indivisibilité et leur interdépendance sont autant de garanties de
protection de la dignité humaine. Mais il est évident que les droits reconnus
et exposés dans la Déclaration s’appliquent à tout homme, cela en vertu
de l’origine commune des personnes, qui demeure le point central du dessein
créateur de Dieu pour le monde et pour l’histoire. Ces droits trouvent leur
fondement dans la loi naturelle inscrite au cœur de l’homme et présente dans
les diverses cultures et civilisations. Détacher les droits humains de ce
contexte signifierait restreindre leur portée et céder à une conception
relativiste, pour laquelle le sens et l’interprétation des droits pourraient
varier et leur universalité pourrait être niée au nom des différentes
conceptions culturelles, politiques, sociales et même religieuses. La grande
variété des points de vue ne peut pas être un motif pour oublier que ce ne sont
pas les droits seulement qui sont universels, mais également la personne
humaine, sujet de ces droits.
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!
Paix et prospérité, avec l’aide
de Dieu!
Paz y
prosperidad con la ayuda de Dios!
سَلامٌ وَإزْدِهَارٌ بعَوْن ِ الله ِ!
因著天主的幫助願大家 得享平安和繁榮 !
Мира и
благоденствия
с помощью
Боҗией!
Thank you very much.
© Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana