A rational, which is to say Catholic, view of human sexuality sees it as merely one aspect of the human person, necessarily bounded by moral strictures and cultural mores that keep this powerful drive channeled and controlled for the good of the person, the family, and the nation. Restricted to marriage, that the two may become one and beget offspring, it becomes a powerful force for good.
This is emphatically not the view that predominates at the World Health Organization, the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Fund, and the World Bank. In their view, “people must be empowered to exercise control over their sexual lives,” and anything and everything that hinders the free and unfettered expression of sexuality must he swept away.
To this end, this consortium has begun a major new program to promote what it terms “sexual health.” Lurking under the cover of this not-so-innocuous label is a far-reaching program to attack chastity, marital fidelity, the traditional family, and any and all cultural and religious strictures on sexuality. A program designed to reduce us, in other words, to the level of heedless beasts when it comes to sexual matters. Of course, none of this is openly stated, but read between the lines of the following statement: “The specific objectives [of the sexual health initiative] are to increase knowledge and understanding of the social and cultural factors related to harmful sexual practices in order to develop strategies to abolish these practices.”
“Harmful Sexual Practices”
The “harmful sexual practices” this consortium would like to see abolished include the practices of discouraging sex before marriage, stigmatizing infidelity within marriage, and restricting marriage to persons of the opposite sex, among other things.
Those of us who believe, based on faith and evidence, that such things should be forbidden, or at least discouraged, are denying others “the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.” But the consortium’s demands go far beyond the several examples given above. In fact, under its definition of sexual health, we are to abandon all social, cultural and religious notions that in any way impinge on the sexual freedom of others. We are instructed that “sexual health requires [that we adopt] a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships.” In other words, it is not enough that we refrain from publicly disapproving of bizarre and unhealthy sexual practices. Our positive assent to these practices is required.
High on the list of issues that the WHO “sexual health” approach is intended to address are unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion. Their “solutions” go without saying. For unintended pregnancy they prescribe hormonal contraceptives, IUDs, and condoms. For unsafe abortion they prescribe the legalization of abortion on demand. But hormonal contraceptives cause cancer, IUDs cause pelvic inflammatory disease, and condoms fail. As far as abortion is concerned, it can lead to infertility, low-birth-weight babies, and death. This is not a picture of perfect sexual health.
In fact, the perfect picture of sexual health would be a man and a woman who abstain until marriage, are faithful to their wedding vows, and perhaps practice natural family planning. Such a couple, secure in a life-long monogamous relationship, would be free from danger of infection, open to the joy of children, and able to develop a relationship of such intimacy and depth that it completely transcends the sterile sex of radical feminist fancies.
Christian Family Model
Such a Christian family model would be anathema to the UN consortium for its spirit of self-sacrifice, for its tradition of male headship, and for the controls it imposes upon sexual expression. For the UN not only wants to create hypersexual human beings, it also wants to completely remake society. As the authors of “Sexual health — a new focus for WHO” write, “Underlying forms of exclusion and inequality — in particular poverty, gender inequalities, and unequal access to education and health care-also have to be addressed.” A project to force men and women to be equal in all respects sounds like a good description of global tyranny to me.
