Philosophy and Canon Law vol. 5 (2019), pp.

7–21
ISSN 2451-2141

[Link]

Marian Machinek
University of Warmia and Mazury, Poland
[Link]

Reproductive Rights versus the Christian

Culture of the Body
Two Different Perspectives

Ab s t r a c t: The comparison between the concept of sexual and reproductive rights and the idea
of gender and the Christian culture of the body with its personalist anthropology reveals their
essential differences. The concept of reproductive rights is permeated with individualism, where
sex identity can be freely defined, and sexual activities of individuals—provided that they stay
within the boundaries of law—are not subjected to any moral norms. The main point of the
disagreement between the concept of reproductive rights and the Christian culture of the body
concerns the meaning of human corporeality. For the former, human body is, in a certain way, an
‘outside’ of the self-determining subject. According to the latter view, human body participates
in man’s dignity as his constituent dimension. Another difference revolves around the meaning
of sexual activity. Efforts to force implementation of sexual and reproductive rights, along with
gender informed law and culture, are dangerous to the fundamental group unit of society—the
family—based on the marriage between man and woman.
Ke y wo r d s: h uman rights, reproductive and sexual rights, Christian culture of the body, encycli-
cal Humanae Vitae, gender, personalistic concept of person

Introduction

In 2018, there were numerous celebrations marking the anniversaries of prom-

ulgation of three momentous documents, which are of interest to this paper.
Seventy years ago, in 1948, the United Nations proclaimed a milestone docu-
8 Philosophy

ment in the modern history of our civilization: Universal Declaration of Hu-

man Rights. Its signatories called it the reaction of the outraged “conscience of
mankind” to the barbarous acts committed during the Second World War, ended
barely three years before.1 The Declaration has become the springboard and the
point of reference for various later initiatives addressing basic human rights.
Twenty years later, in 1968, the public heard about two other extremely im-
portant documents. First, the Proclamation of Teheran, passed as the Final Act
of the First International Conference on Human Rights, organized by the United
Nations in Teheran.2 Its nineteen articles aspired to demonstrate the importance
of human rights and give them necessary prominence in the lives of individuals
and societies. The Proclamation reflects twenty years of lively discussions on
human rights, and foreshadows later disagreements over their interpretations
and efforts to work out further details. The third document of interest to us,
proclaimed in the same memorable year 1968, was the encyclical by Pope Paul
VI: Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), subtitled: On the Regulation of Birth.3
No other Church document of the last century caused such fierce controversies,
triggered by its refusal to accept artificial methods of birth control. It came less
than ten years after the invention of a contraceptive pill,4 and it was immediately
labelled as an attack on modernity, social advance, and the progress of medical
science. It was precisely what this paper calls the Christian culture of the body,
that found its expression in pope’s arguments for the defence of the carnal and
spiritual integrity of man in matters related to his sex, sexuality, and procrea-
tion, and his relevant moral obligations. Papal stance was in an opposition to the
anthropological concept of man, on which present-day demands for the affirma-
tion of the reproductive and sexual rights of minorities are based.
The objectives of this article are to identify and discuss some of the anthro-
pological and ideological origins of the theory of sexual and reproductive rights,
compare this theory with the Christian notion of the culture of the body, and
demonstrate the most contested differences between these two concepts.

1
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly at its third session on December 10, 1948, in Paris, in France.
2
The Conference met from 22 April to 13 May 1968.
3
The encyclical Humanae Vitae, written by Paul VI, was promulgated on 25 July 1968.
4
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the birth control pill for contra-
ceptive use in 1960.
 Marian Machinek: Reproductive Rights versus the Christian Culture of the Body… 9

An Important Redefinition of Terms

The perusal of various papal documents and pronouncements, starting with Re-
rum Novarum by Leo XIII (1891), can create an impression that the advocacy
of human rights has been the common concern of the Catholic Church and
international community for decades. Later popes—John XXII in Pacem in
Terris (1963), Paul VI in his address to the United Nations General Assembly
in 1965, and John Paul II in his encyclical letters Redemptor Hominis (1979),
Laborem Exercens (1981), Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) and Centesimus Annus
(1991), and his numerous speeches and addresses—pledged Church’s support for
activities defending and promoting human rights, abandoning her previous re-
serve, caused by their antireligious and anticlerical overtones, inherited from the
French Revolution.5 Whence does the dissonance between the numerous UN en-
dorsed programs for the recognition of certain individual claims as human rights
(especially those concerning sexual and reproductive rights), and the teaching
of the Catholic Church, come from? What makes some people see her as the
opponent of human rights? In an attempt to answer these troubling questions,
let us first briefly examine the evolution of the idea of human rights. Reading the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights one cannot fail to recognize their ori-
gins. They are all firmly anchored in man’s rational nature. Every human being
has human rights; he is born with them and he dies with them. He never forfeits
them. They are inherent and irrevocable. As such, they are not dependent on
any official, formal consent of any human authority. They do not need it to exist
and be valid. Thus says the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on family:
“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or
religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal
rights […]. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent
of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit
of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” (Article 16).6
Similarly, the Proclamation of Teheran: “The protection of the family and of the
child remains the concern of the international community. Parents have a basic
human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of
their children” (Article 16).7 The rights of parents concerning their procreative
5
See: Jerzy Gocko, “O prawach człowieka i niektórych kontrowersjach z nimi związanych,”
in Prawa człowieka. W 60. rocznicę uchwalenia Powszechnej Deklaracji Praw Człowieka –
przesłanie moralne Kościoła, ed. Krzysztof Jeżyna and Tadeusz Zadykowicz (Lublin: Wydaw-
nictwo KUL, 2010), 40–42.
6
Powszechna Deklaracja Praw Człowieka, [Link]
pdf/Powszechna_Deklaracja_Praw_Czlowieka.pdf, accessed January 30, 2019.
7
Proclamation of Teheran, Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights,
Teheran, [Link] accessed January 30, 2019.
10 Philosophy

decisions, formulated as in the quoted texts, are clear. At this level of generality,
they are in concord with the Catholic vision of marriage and family.
A shift in understanding human rights in relation to man’s sexuality became
visible in the 1960s, with the appearance of the idea of “reproductive health”
in publications relating to gynecology and birth control.8 The latter term was origi-
nally meant for programs of control and reduction of the global birth rate. It is pre-
sent in documents produced by international conferences on women9 and global
population.10 Focus on health related rights, including protection of “reproductive
health,” led to the formulation of the term: “reproductive rights.” Both names are
today closely related and dependent on each other for their definitions.
The International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt,
in 1994 laid a great stress on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive
rights. There was a strong lobbying for access to contraception and abortion as
the important element of reproductive health and reproductive rights, a redefini-
tion of marriage, and granting equal marriage rights to all kinds of unions. The
draft of the final document prompted a strong reaction from the Vatican. Pope
John Paul II sent a letter to the heads of states participating in the conference,
expressing his great concern about plans for pushing ahead with making right to
unlimited abortion into law, and protesting against a “lifestyle typical of certain
fringes within developed societies, which are materially rich and secularised.”11
In the final document of the conference, there is a passage disclaiming abortion
as a method of birth control, and recommending States to devise means to as-
sist women in avoiding recourse to abortion.12 But the term reproductive health
was broadened to include not only concern for woman’s health before and during
pregnancy, but her general sexual well-being too. The latter meant access to legal
methods of birth control; in fact, to contraceptives and abortion.13
8
Bioethics Reflection Group of COMECE, 2010, “The Term ‘Sexual and Reproductive
Health’ and Its Meaning at International and European Levels,” in Science & Ethics. Collection
of Opinions Prepared by the Bioethical Reflection Group (COMECE: Brussels, 2012).
9
The first international conferences on women were organised in Mexico (1975), Copen-
hagen (1980), and Nairobi (1985).
10
The first international conferences of this type were organized in Bucharest (1974) and
Mexico (1984). See: Janusz Balicki, “Globalna polityka ludnościowa. Konflikt Północ – Połu-
dnie,” Saeculum Christianum 7(2) (2000): 221–224.
11
John Paul II, 1994, “The International Community. List do Głów Państw na Między-
narodową Konferencję na temat Zaludnienia i Rozwoju w Kairze,” March 19, in Posoborowe
Dokumenty Kościoła katolickiego o małżeństwie i rodzinie, Vol. II, ed. Kazimierz Lubowicki
(Kraków: Wydawnictwo M, 1999), 107.
12
Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo September
5–13, 1994, No. 7.24, accessed January 30, 2019, [Link]
tion/events/pdf/expert/27/SupportingDocuments/A_CONF.171_13_Rev.[Link].
13
Cf. Marian Pokrywka, “Prawa reprodukcyjne,” in Prawa człowieka. W 60. roczni-
cę uchwalenia Powszechnej Deklaracji Prawa Człowieka – przesłanie moralne Kościoła, ed.
Krzysztof Jeżyna and Tadeusz Zadykowicz (Wydawnictwo KUL: Lublin, 2010), 120–122.
 Marian Machinek: Reproductive Rights versus the Christian Culture of the Body… 11

The Fourth World Conference on Women: “Action for Equality, Develop-

ment and Peace” in 1995 in Beijing, in China, took another step forward by
planting the ideas of reproductive health and reproductive rights firmly into the
public conscience. Its final documents—the Beijing Declaration and the Plat-
form for Action—state in numerous passages that health and reproductive rights
are parts of universal human rights.14 The Platform for Action lists “unsafe abor-
tions” as one of the threats to sexual and reproductive health.15 Though it reit-
erates the recommendation of the International Conference on Population and
Development in Cairo (1994) that abortion should not be promoted as a method
of family planning, and condemns induced abortion, it urges the governments
of the countries where abortion is legal to make it accessible and safe.16 Here
is the catch: abortion is safe only if it is legal. So, to make it safe, it must be
made legal first.
The Conference in Beijing made another important inroad into public
and legislative discourse on reproductive rights by inserting into it a certain
key concept: “gender-based identity.” The term appeared for the first time in the
late 1960s.17 It can be seen as the anthropological basis for sexual and reproduc-
tive rights. It postulates precedence of culturally conditioned gender over bio-
logically determined sex. Though the latter remains the starting point for every
human being, it never rises to a status of a normative reference point. Today,
every reflection on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights must
demonstrate sensitivity to gender-related issues. It must be gender-sensitive.18
In the last twenty years, reproductive rights and gender-based perspectives
have been frequently evoked in many international documents, recommenda-
tions, political agendas, and legal acts. Their acolytes want them to be accepted
as imperatives in all matters related to parenthood; and they want it on the global
scale. The gap between partisans of this process and defenders of the Christian
culture of the body and the teaching of the Catholic Church, is growing wider.
It should be said though that the terms themselves are by no means the cause of
this lamentable state of affairs. There would be no major disagreements between
modern movements for the advocacy of human rights and the Christian under-
14
“IV Światowa Konferencja w sprawie Kobiet, Platforma Działania” No. 95, [Link]
[Link]/uploads/dokumenty/raport_czwartej_swiatowej_konferencji_w_sprawie_kobiet_pe
kin_1995.pdf, accessed January 30, 2019.
15
Ibid., No. 93, 106 (j), 109 (i).
16
Ibid., No. 106 (k).
17
Robert J. Stoller, an American psychiatrist, is credited with the introduction of the term
gender into the academia. See: Robert J. Stoller, Sex and Gender. On the Development of
Masculinity and Femininity (New York: Carnak Books, 1968).
18
“IV Światowa Konferencja w sprawie Kobiet, Platforma Działania,” No. 107. Often eno-
ugh attempts are made to reduce gender-based approach to justified claims for social equality
of men and women. Nevertheless, it is difficult to use gender merely as a symbol of feminist
postulates, with no regard for the biological sex and the concept of man.
12 Philosophy

standing of those rights, if reproductive rights meant, for all interested parties,
freedom from external pressure and responsible sexual activities aiming at con-
ception of a child. Undoubtedly, the concept of gender does correctly recognize
some cultural determinants. The teaching of the Catholic Church acknowledges
it. The problem stems from ideologically driven narrowing of their definitions
and forging them into weapons for redefining marriage, universal acceptance
of contraceptives and unlimited right to abortion.

Anthropological Difference between

the Doctrine of Sexual
and Reproductive Rights
and the Christian Culture of the Body

At the core of the anthropological difference mentioned above are entirely dif-
ferent visions of man, represented by the opposing doctrines. The Church’s view
was succinctly expressed in the reservations of the Holy See to the resolutions
of the Cairo Conference (1994):

With reference to the terms “sexual health,” “sexual rights,” “reproductive

health” and “reproductive rights,” the Holy See considers them essential to
the all-encompassing (holistic) understanding of health; they refer—each in
its own way—to the entire human person: his or her identity, mind and body.
They aid sexual maturity and reciprocal love and shared decision-making,
that is, the qualities that make marital relationships in harmony with moral
precepts.19

What is at stake is not an obscure legal ruling, or one or another particular

aspect of private or social life, but the very vision of man.

Shift towards Individualism

The concept of sexual and reproductive rights reflects the opinions that peo-
ple are totally free in shaping their sexual identities. It lays great stress on
self-determination, to which moral autonomy is crucial—the notion central to

19
“Zastrzeżenia Stolicy Apostolskiej,” L’Osservatore Romano (Pl) 15(11) (1994): 48
[Trans. M.M.].
 Marian Machinek: Reproductive Rights versus the Christian Culture of the Body… 13

every anthropology. In the context of the Christian culture of the body, moral
autonomy represents the ability to perform moral discernments and follow their
conclusions (knowing good from evil). As one of the constituent parts of human
dignity, moral autonomy calls for legal frameworks protecting that dignity from
hostile forces. That is what human rights are, actually. The doctrine of sexual
and reproductive rights leans in the direction of granting an absolute primacy
to individual freedom. Towering over everything else, individual freedom no
longer recognizes good, but defines it autocratically.
Studying the history of the movements for the protection of human rights,
and their use of the terms reproductive health and reproductive rights, one can
notice the moment when a significant shift towards individualism occurred.
Initially, their adherents used to employ them in the context of marriage and
family, or couples. Later, they turned their attention to individual rights, espe-
cially women’s rights. Parenthood ceased to be viewed as shared responsibility
of couples in favor of individual projects of men or women.
That shift is present in the probably most contended issue: “The right
to abortion,” treated as an element of the reproductive health and the right of
women to self-determination. In many countries where abortion was permis-
sible, but regarded against the law, it was exempted from punishment because
of exceptional circumstances of pregnant women. Such policy was expected to
kill two birds with one stone: Satisfy the need for legal condemnation for kill-
ing the unborn child, and express sympathy with the postulates to accord preg-
nant women exclusive responsibility for their children. For instance, abortion in
Germany is against the law, but not punishable (rechtswidrig aber straffrei).20
Right to abortion is no longer a concession, but the valid part of reproductive
rights, closely linked to the fundamental human rights. Gone is the moral in-
iquity of abortion, expelled by the woman’s right to make sovereign decisions
about life and death of the child in her womb. This is bound to generate serious
social consequences. For instance, for health professionals. Today, no physician
or other health professional may be compelled to perform an abortion. But, if the
right to abortion becomes part of reproductive rights and—by extension—hu-
man rights, every physician refusing to perform it can be accused of violation
of human rights. In legal practice, it is comparable to the use of torture, or other
forms of cruel treatment. In some European countries, doctors refusing abor-
tion21 already experience many problems caused by the doctrine of sexual and
reproductive rights.
The Christian culture of the body is based on the personalist view of the
human person. It acknowledges the importance of self-determination as person’s
20
See: Bundesministerium für Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)
§ 218–218a, [Link] accessed January 31, 2019.
21
Cf. Bogdan Chazan, Prawo do życia. Bez kompromisu. Interview with Maciej Müller
(Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2014).
14 Philosophy

potentiality and moral obligation. But, it places itself in the context of the rela-
tionship. The relational dimension of man is as fundamental as his autonomy.22
The right to self-determination, in the context of sexuality and reproduction, is
not viewed simply as the freedom to self-expression, restricted only by law, and
not by any other natural or objective moral norms, whatever the interpretation of
the latter. In the context of the Christian culture of the body, procreative issues
are always considered in the light of the shared responsibility of the married
couple. Marriage is essential for establishing strong and stable bonds between
parents, creating environments that are conducive to the proper upbringing of
their offspring. Such environments cannot be regarded as individual projects
of autonomous persons, but as the expression of the shared responsibility of the
couples and the fruits of their reciprocal love. In Christianity, we do not talk
of reproduction (that is, satisfying one’s sexual needs), but procreation (that is,
passing on life as the fruit of the conjugal love). There is no “right to child” that
could be made into an element of reproductive rights, simply because no human
being can be the object of the rights of another human being. If reproductive
rights may be mentioned in the context of the Christian culture of the body at
all, it could be only in reference to the right of parents to decide the number and
spacing of their children.23 When talking about rights of parents we must not
forget about their responsibilities for the life of their child. Direct abortion is the
negation of child’s fundamental human right to life. Obviously then, it cannot be
accepted as an element of reproductive rights.

The Meaning of the Human Corporeality

The emphasis on individual preferences in the doctrine of reproductive rights
is what makes it so incompatible with the Christian culture of the body. Both
concepts understand human corporeality differently. One may have an impres-
sion that the anthropological concept, on which the doctrine of sexual and re-
productive rights rests, is tinted with the anthropological dualism. The essence
of manhood seem to consist of the self-determining human mind, to which
corporeality is something quite external: an object that can be used; a service
life that can be made use of; a plastic structure that can be molded at will. It is
very clear in the gender concept of human sexuality as the product of culture.
According to gender-driven view of human history, culture used to be employed
22
See: Ellio Sgreccia, Personalist bioethics. Foundations and Applications (Philadelphia:
NCBC, 2012), 384–387.
23
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World of the Second Vatican Council
calls parents “cooperators with the love of God the Creator.” They are the interpreters of that love
and they have the exclusive right to decide the number and spacing of their children (Gaudium
et Spes, 50).
 Marian Machinek: Reproductive Rights versus the Christian Culture of the Body… 15

as the rigid frame for sexual identity, imposed indiscriminately on every new-
born person. Modern, liberal societies should remove those restrictions and al-
low autonomous subjects freely shape their own sexual self-expression. Sexual
orientation and sexual identity24 are culturally conditioned and can be freely
shaped, or changed, according to subject’s personal preferences. Hence the drive
to change law to validate the object-oriented attitude to human body and make
it a lawful element of the proposed sexual and reproductive rights.
The Christian culture of the body perceives corporeality from a completely
different perspective. Human person is regarded as the unity of body and spirit.
Both components, body and spirit, are irreducible in their interrelation. Human
person is “anima et corpore unus,” in the words of the Pastoral Constitution
on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican
Council.25 The Christian perspective on person goes far beyond monism (which
reduces man to one of his constituent parts, usually to the material one; like,
for instance, in naturalism), and dualism (which acknowledges irreducible quali-
ties of body and spirit, but does not recognize their unity—only a very loose
relationship). The crucial thing is that human body participates in the dignity of
person. Thus, it cannot be an object of manipulation.26

Sexual Activities and Procreation

Different views on corporeality prompt an inquiry into the relationship between
sexuality and procreation. The doctrine of reproductive rights does not pay much
attention to this issue. It is concerned only about their biological interdepend-
ence, important solely in the context of reproductive health. That interdepend-
ence in itself does not have any deeper meaning. Of course, self-determining
persons, using their bodies to their own ends, can give it some other meanings.
Sexual encounter is simply the realization of one’s sexual needs, and his body
a means to achieve that end. It follows that any interference with fertility (like

24
Both terms are key concepts in the gender ideology. They refer to deeply felt experience
of one’s corporeality and sex and the intensity of affectional, emotional, and sexual attraction to
individuals of the same or opposite sex, entering into sexual relationships with them. The above
definitions come from the Preamble to the Yogyakarta Principles, a list of claims to legislators
composed in an Indonesian city of Yogyakarta in 2006 by a group of experts and activists inte-
rested in the rights of sexual minorities. See: [Link]
accessed January 15, 2014.
25
Gaudium et Spes, 14.
26
Cf. Jaroslaw Kupczak, Teologiczna semantyka płci (Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2013),
27–54. For more on corporeality from the Christian perspective of man as the unity of body and
spirit, see: Marian Machinek, “Zur Kontroverse über die normative Dimension der menschlichen
Leiblichkeit,” Studia Nauk Teologicznych 8 (2013): 185–193.
16 Philosophy

artificial contraception and abortion), ensuring as free and comfortable realiza-

tion of one’s sexual and reproductive needs as possible, is permissible.
This position reflects a profound cultural change caused by the application
of the theory of evolution to the philosophical anthropology. One of the key
premises in the theory of evolution is the concept of accident. When employed
to explain man’s corporeality and his biological sex, it is argued that the latter
is the result of accidental evolutionary changes. Biological sex cannot be en-
dowed with any deeper moral meaning. It follows that it is wrong to view cor-
poreality as a reference point for moral discernment and moral conduct. Human
nature—what people call it—is a vehicle, subject to changes, for the articulation
of culturally conditioned social roles and models of behavior. Since both social
roles and social models of behavior are culturally constructed, they must be in
the same way deconstructed, reduced to their constituent parts, reinterpreted
and reconstructed again, so that they fulfil the expectations of the self-determin-
ing persons. To achieve these objectives, popular perception of biological sex
and sexuality must be changed first. When this process is on the way, the time
will come for the entire social structures to undergo comprehensive deconstruc-
tion and reconstruction operations, so that they cease to obstruct the rights of
individuals to materialize their sexual needs and preferences.27
The Christian culture of the body proposes an opposite perspective on hu-
man sexuality and biological sex. Because man is the unity of body and spirit,
he exercises his freedom within his corporal nature. His sexuality is an asset to
be used wisely and responsibly. It is both a gift and a task. As Karol Wojtyła
puts it in his book Love and Responsibility, human body has a certain nuptial
quality: its biological processes were created to express love.28 Sexuality affects
man so deeply that when he makes a decision to engage in a sexual activity, he
makes a decision about the person.29
According to the Christian perspective on biological sex, sexual education
should not be limited to the presentation of the anatomy and functions of re-
productive organs. Neither should it be part of the fight for unlimited access to
contraceptives and instruction lessons on how to use them. Its objective should
rather be an introduction into the grammar of that special language: sexual
act. Sexual encounter preserves its full meaning if it happens in the context of
complete reciprocity of the spouses and respects and protects—not artificially

27
See: Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, Frau – Männin – Menschin. Zwischen Feminismus
und Gender (Kevelaer: Butzon & Berker, 2009), 165–167.
28
Karol Wojtyła, Miłość i odpowiedzialność (Lublin: TN KUL, 2001), 203, ft. 69.
29
For more on the role of biological sex in the Christian concept of person, see: Karolina
Korobczenko, “Ideologia gender a ‘osobotwórcza’ funkcja ciała i płci w teologii Jana Pawła II,”
in Idea gender jako wyzwanie dla teologii, ed. Anroni Jucewicz and Marian Machinek (Olsztyn:
Hosianum, 2009), 94–96.
 Marian Machinek: Reproductive Rights versus the Christian Culture of the Body… 17

removes—their procreative potential.30 In this way, the dignity of parents and

possible offspring is preserved.
The above arguments are basically independent of religious faith. They are
reasonable and compatible with man’s corporal and spiritual nature. We are not
dealing with the autocracy of biology here, but with the consistent logics of ecol-
ogy. The Christian culture of the body is supported by the belief about human
nature as the materialized thought of God the Creator, not a chance product of
evolution. Being a creature (in German: Kreatürlichkeit), every human being
is the materialized thought of God—not the outcome of some accidental work-
ings of biology. The whole creation, all creatures, especially men, carry within
themselves the “language of the Logos,” as card. Joseph Ratzinger puts it. And
not only in the mathematical and aesthetic dimensions, but in the moral one
too. Since this language can be read and understood, man can learn his moral
objectives and obligations.31 Of course, it does not follow that the meanings of
human biological sexuality can be read directly from biological phenomena,
conditions, and facts. Human mind has to go a long way from moral experience
and analysis of person’s corporal and spiritual structure to the formulation of
moral norms. In the words of John Paul II: “The person, by the light of reason
and the support of virtue, discovers in the body the anticipatory signs, the ex-
pression and the promise of the gift of self, in conformity with the wise plan
of the Creator.”32

Conflict in Policymaking

The concept of reproductive rights is closely linked with individualism.

Some people maintain that human rights, in their modern form, do not reflect
all human needs and aspirations, especially those concerning sex and reproduc-
tion. They claim that human rights are subject to change and elaboration. Ac-
cording to the Yogyakarta Principles, everyone should have “the right to develop
and discuss new human rights norms and advocate their acceptance.”33 The fight
for passing new sexual and reproductive rights takes place in mass media and
politics. The terms sexual health, reproductive rights, and gender were not that
30
See: Humanae Vitae, 12.
31
Cf. Benedikt XVI, “Ansprache an die Teilnehmer an dem von der Päpstlichen Lateranuniver-
sität veranstaltete Internationalen Kongress über das natürliche Sittengesetz,” February 12, 2007,
[Link]
xvi_spe_20070212_pul_ge.html, accessed August 8, 2018.
32
Veritatis Splendor, 48.
33
The Yogyakarta Principles, 27.
18 Philosophy

often used in academic debates before. They rather served, from the very start,
as the weapon in policymaking and the struggle to direct and promote the de-
sired legislative and social changes. Supporters of the doctrine of reproductive
rights are so determined to induce social changes that they are more interested
in manufacturing new legal and cultural standards, and influencing international
political structures and global non-governmental organizations, than in initiating
and participating in rational debates on those issues. They try to influence in-
ternational bodies (like the United Nations or the European Union) with various
appeals and recommendations and make them pass their recommendations as
internationally promoted resolutions, which could be then used to press national
legislatives bodies to include them into their legal systems. That is a top-bottom
strategy: inducing legislative changes on local levels by making it obligatory
for them to comply with international norms, provoking in this way changes in
culture and mentality of targeted societies.
Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence
Against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) of 2011 can serve
as the illustration of the above schemes. The Convention contains a number
of regulations that are quite in harmony with the precepts of the Christian
culture of the body and deserve support. For example, the objection to vari-
ous forms of physical and psychological violence against women. But, in many
parts of the Convention, there is the one and only true interpretation of violence
given to follow; most of all, in the Article 18, recommending that the term
violence is to be understood in the context of the cultural gender.34 This inter-
pretation may change the definition of violence and desired measures against
it. Anyone objecting to the Convention on the grounds of its gender perspec-
tive as the decisive factor, must face unfair, but efficient—because mass me-
dia driven—accusation that whoever rejects the Convention, supports violence
against women.
Another important conflict revolves around the institution of marriage
and family. Campaigners for reproductive rights mention the institution of tra-
ditional family either in negative terms, as the birthplace of hazards and op-
pressive stereotypes, or in the sense of the right to start one’s own family and
define it according to one’s views, on the grounds that “families exist in diverse
forms.”35 It follows that persons of the same sex can found a family.36 This is
diametrically opposed to the Christian culture of the body. Complementarity of
the sexes demands that marriage be the union between man and woman, not
34
See: Rada Europy, Konwencja Rady Europy o zapobieganiu i zwalczaniu przemocy wobec
kobiet i przemocy domowej, [Link] accessed February 1, 2019.
35
The Yogyakarta Principles, 24.
36
Cf. Marian Machinek, “Teologiczna antropologia w konfrontacji z ideą gender,” in Idea
gender jako wyzwanie dla teologii, ed. Antoni Jucewicz and Marian Machinek (Olsztyn: Hosia-
num, 2009), 108–109.
 Marian Machinek: Reproductive Rights versus the Christian Culture of the Body… 19

the union between two or any number of persons of any sex. Making diverse
unions equal before law, admitting them as marriages into the public sphere
and endorsing various forms of families, will seriously weaken families based
on the marriage between man and woman. Furthermore, it will compromise the
definition of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society,
written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is hard to escape the
impression that the key concepts of the postulated sexual and reproductive rights
contrast with the Christian culture of the body, and the letter and the spirit of
human rights as they were expressed in the most important declarations since
the end of the Second World War.

Bibliography

Balicki, Janusz. “Globalna polityka ludnościowa. Konflikt Północ – Południe.” Saeculum Chris-
tianum 7(2) (2000): 221–224.
Benedikt XVI. “Ansprache an die Teilnehmer an dem von der Päpstlichen Lateranuniversität
veranstaltete Internationalen Kongress über das natürliche Sittengesetz.” February 12, 2007.
[Link]
xvi_spe_20070212_pul_ge.html. Accessed August 8, 2018.
Bioethics Reflection Group of COMECE. “The Term ‘Sexual and Reproductive Health’ and Its
Meaning at International and European Levels.” In Science & Ethics. Collection of Opinions
Prepared by the Bioethical Reflection Group (COMECE: Brussels 2012), 5–29.
Bundesministerium für Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) § 218–218a.
Accessed January, 31, 2019.
Chazan, Bogdan. Prawo do życia. Bez kompromisu. Interview with Maciej Müller. Kraków:
Wydawnictwo WAM, 2014.
“Gaudium et spes. Konstytucja o Kościele w świecie współczesnym.” In Sobór Watykański
II, Konstytucje – Dekrety – Deklaracje. Tekst łacińsko-polski. Poznań: Pallotinum 1967,
811–987.
Gerl-Falkovitz, Hanna-Barbara. Frau – Männin – Menschin. Zwischen Feminismus und Gender.
Kevelaer: Butzon & Berker, 2009.
Gocko, Jerzy. “O prawach człowieka i niektórych kontrowersjach z nimi związanych.” In Prawa
człowieka. W 60. rocznicę uchwalenia Powszechnej Deklaracji Praw Człowieka – przesłanie
moralne Kościoła, ed. Krzysztof Jeżyna and Tadeusz Zadykowicz. Lublin: Wydawnictwo
KUL, 2010, 33–48.
John Paul II. The International Community. List do Głów Państw na Międzynarodową
Konferencję na temat Zaludnienia i Rozwoju w Kairze.” March 19, 1994. In Posoborowe
Dokumenty Kościoła katolickiego o małżeństwie i rodzinie, Vol. II, ed. Kazimierz Lubo-
wicki. Kraków: Wydawnictwo M, 1999), 105–108.
Korobczenko, Karolina. “Ideologia gender a ‘osobotwórcza’ funkcja ciała i płci w teologii Jana
Pawła II.” In Idea gender jako wyzwanie dla teologii, edited by Antoni Jucewicz and Marian
Machinek. Olsztyn: Hosianum, 2009, 94–96.
Kupczak, Jarosław. Teologiczna semantyka płci. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2013.
20 Philosophy

Machinek, Marian. “Teologiczna antropologia w konfrontacji z ideą gender.” Idea gender

jako wyzwanie dla teologii, edited by Antoni Jucewicz and Marian Machinek. Olsztyn:
Hosianum, 2009, 108–109.
Machinek, Marian. “Zur Kontroverse über die normative Dimension der menschlichen Leibli-
chkeit.” Studia Nauk Teologicznych 8 (2013): 185–193.
Paweł VI. Humanae vitae. Encyklika o zasadach moralnych w dziedzinie przekazywania życia
ludzkiego. In Posoborowe Dokumenty Kościoła katolickiego o małżeństwie i rodzinie,
vol. I, edited by Kazimierz Lubowicki. Kraków: Wydawnictwo M, 1999, 21–42.
Pokrywka, Marian. “Prawa reprodukcyjne.” In Prawa człowieka. W 60. Rocznicę uchwalenia
Powszechnej Deklaracji Praw Człowieka – przesłanie moralne Kościoła, edited by Krzysz-
tof Jeżyna and Tadeusz Zadykowicz. Wydawnictwo KUL: Lublin, 2010, 115–126.
Powszechna Deklaracja Praw Człowieka,
[Link]
Accessed January 30, 2019.
Proclamation of Teheran, Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran.
[Link] Accessed January 30, 2019.
Rada Europy. Konwencja Rady Europy o zapobieganiu i zwalczaniu przemocy wobec kobiet
i przemocy domowej. [Link] Accessed February 1, 2019.
Sgreccia, Ellio. Personalist Bioethics. Foundations and Applications. Philadelphia: NCBC, 2012.
Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender. On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity. New
York: Carnak Books, 1968.
IV Światowa Konferencja w sprawie Kobiet, Platforma Działania. [Link]
loads/dokumenty/raport_czwartej_swiatowej_konferencji_w_sprawie_kobiet_pekin_1995.
pdf. Accessed January 30, 2019.
United Nations. Report of the International Conference on Population and Development. Cairo
September 5–13 1994.
[Link]
A_CONF.171_13_Rev.[Link]. Accessed January 30, 2019.
Wojtyła, Karol. Miłość i odpowiedzialność. Lublin: TN KUL, 2001.
Zasady Yogyakarty. Zasady stosowania międzynarodowego prawa praw człowieka w stosunku
do orientacji seksualnej oraz tożsamości płciowej.
[Link] Accessed January 15, 2014.
“Zastrzeżenia Stolicy Apostolskiej.” L’Osservatore Romano (Pl) 15(11) (1994): 48.
Jan Pawel II. “Veritatis splendor. Encyklika o niektórych podstawowych problemach nauczania
moralnego Kościoła.” In Jan Paweł II, Veritatis splendor. Tekst i komentarze, edited by
Andrzej Szostek. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 1995, 5–103.
 Marian Machinek: Reproductive Rights versus the Christian Culture of the Body… 21

Marian Machinek

Droits de reproduction versus culture chrétienne du corps

Deux perspectives différentes

Ré s u m é

La juxtaposition des concepts de droits sexuels et reproductifs et de l’idée de genre avec la

culture chrétienne du corps, et notamment son anthropologie personnaliste, révèle une différence
fondamentale entre ces deux points de vue. Le concept de droits reproductifs se caractérise par
l’individualisme, en vertu duquel l’identité de genre peut être librement déterminée, et le com-
portement sexuel de l’individu n’est soumis à aucune norme morale, tant qu’il est conforme à la
loi. Le point principal de désaccord est l’importance de la corporéité humaine dans la conception
de la personne humaine : alors que dans le concept de droits reproductifs le corps reste comme
s›il était « extérieur » au sujet qui s’autodétermine ; dans la culture chrétienne du corps, il fait
partie de la dignité de la personne en tant que dimension constitutive de cette dernière. La dif-
férence se révèle également dans la signification à accorder à l’activité sexuelle. Les tentatives
d’implémentation forcée du concept de droits sexuels et reproductifs ainsi que l’inscription de
la perspective du genre au niveau du droit et de la culture ne peuvent que menacer la cellule
de base de la société, qui est la famille fondée sur le mariage entre une femme et un homme.
Mo t s - clé s : d roits de l’homme, droits sexuels et reproductifs, culture corporelle chrétienne,
encyclique Humanae Vitae, genre, conception personnaliste de l’individu

Marian Machinek

Diritti riproduttivi versus la cultura del corpo cristiano

Due diverse prospettive

S o m m a r io

La giustapposizione dei concetti di diritti sessuali e riproduttivi e l’idea di genere culturale con
la cultura del corpo cristiano insieme alla propria antropologia personalistica rivela una diffe-
renza fondamentale di questi due punti di vista. Il concetto di diritti riproduttivi è caratterizzato
dall’individualismo, in base al quale l’identità di genere può essere liberamente determinata
e il comportamento sessuale dell’individuo non è soggetto a norme morali fintanto che sono
all’interno della legge. Il punto principale di disaccordo è l’importanza della corporeità umana
nella concezione della persona umana: mentre all’interno del concetto di diritti riproduttivi il
corpo rimane come se fosse «al di fuori» di un soggetto che si autodetermina : all’interno della
cultura del corpo cristiano, esso fa parte della dignità della persona in quanto la sua dimensione
costitutiva. La differenza si rivela anche in merito al significato da accordare all’attività sessuale.
I tentativi di implementazione forzata del concetto di diritti sessuali e riproduttivi insieme alla
prospettiva di genere a livello di legge e di cultura costituirebbero una minaccia per la cellula di
base della società, che è la famiglia basata sul matrimonio tra una donna e un uomo.

Pa r ole ch i ave: d iritti umani, diritti sessuali e riproduttivi, cultura del corpo cristiano, enciclica
Humanae Vitae, genere, concezione personalista dell’individuo