The Convention on the Rights of the Child

My thanks to Rob and Rick for their comments on the Convention and thanks for the views of Jonathan Watson and Pat Shrake that were passed along. It is interesting to note that the manner in which the reference to John Paul II was placed in the source that Rob quotes tends to suggest the His Holiness made a statement about the Convention. Indeed, he took the statement from the Declaration and Reservation that is recorded on the HCHR website. What that body does not convey is the impossibility that the Holy Father could have said this in 1984, five years before the Convention text was finally adopted and submitted to the UN General Assembly so that it could be forwarded for signature and ratification.

Actually, the paragraph that is quoted on the HCRC website is a part of the Declaration and Reservations made by then Archbishop Renato Martino, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations on April 20, 1990 in which he made reference to the Pope’s 1984 comment that children are “that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity.” The Pope himself was not commenting on the Convention, it was rather Archbishop Martino providing the Holy See’s view at the time it signed and acceded to the Convention regarding the Holy Father’s great concern about the welfare of children.

When all is said, the Holy See did approve the Convention subject to its Declaration and Reservations. The reservations foresaw problems lurking in the future that were manifested in Cairo and Beijing several years later. So, it is important for us to understand that the Holy See became a party to the Convention subject to this Declaration and Reservations. Time after time the Holy See has had many opportunities to voice its concern about “rights” of the child that are not anchored to its well known position on the family and parents rights and prerogatives that are protected in earlier instruments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So I am suggesting that it is quite possible and consistent with the Church’s view to develop Catholic Legal Theory that is skeptical of some current views of what the Convention means.

From a Catholic perspective, the Convention has to be understood in the context of the many affirmations made by the Holy See regarding families, parents, and children. Indeed, one could not understand the Church’s endorsement of the Convention without an appreciation of the Church’s Charter of the Rights of the Family (1983) and John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio (1982). As I have mentioned earlier, the Church’s endorsement of the Convention was also before the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development and the 1995 Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women. These conferences brought to light understandings of human rights that are in conflict with those of many States including the Holy See. Moreover, in recent years, strained and exaggerated interpretations of provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child have begun to surface in UN debates with which the Church has taken issue and expressed its disagreement. I hasten to add that the Holy See typically looks at all relevant documents and texts and their provisions in asserting its views on the meaning of the articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many of these texts, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights talk about the rights of parents with regard to the proper upbringing of children. To some extent these are reflected in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But there are indeed those who take a very different approach in giving meaning to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child so that children essentially become divorced from the protection and the upbringing rights and duties of parents. From these perspectives, it would seem that the child is an autonomous entity from its birth and no person, including no parent, has the right to interfere. Strange interpretation, but it and others like it exist. I hasten to add that some of the newer interpretations of the Convention open the door to “experts” in children—but not their parents— being able to determine what is in the best interest of the child when the child himself or herself cannot make that determination. Some of these experts are aligned with organizations like Planned Parenthood.

These are relevant matters to take into account when one considers the Convention and its meaning today. It would be fair to say that the general understanding of its provisions in 1990 are challenged by some of today’s strong, positivist interpretations. The concerns raised in previous postings on this topic are genuine and need to be taken into account regarding what this Convention means and what it does not.   RJA sj