MOST of Satan's work in the
world he takes care to keep
hidden. But two small shafts
of light have been thrown
onto his work for me just
recently. The first, a short
article in the Association
of Catholic Women's ACW Review;
the second, a remark (which
at first surprised me) from
a priest in Russia who claimed
that we now, in the West,
live in a Communist society.
These shafts of light help,
especially, to explain the
onslaught of officialdom which
in many countries worldwide
has so successfully been
removing the rights of parents
to be the primary educators
and protectors of their children.
The ACW Review examined
the corrosive work of the
'Frankfurt School' - a group
of German-American scholars
who developed highly provocative
and original perspectives
on contemporary society and
culture, drawing on Hegel,
Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and
Weber. Not that their idea
of a 'cultural revolution'
was particularly new. 'Until
now', wrote Joseph Comte de
Maistre (1753-1821) who for
fifteen years was a Freemason,
'nations were killed by conquest,
that is by invasion: But here
an important question arises;
can a nation not die on its
own soil, without resettlement
or invasion, by allowing the
flies of decomposition to
corrupt to the very core those
original and constituent principles
which make it what it is'.
What
was the Frankfurt School?
Well, in the days following
the Bolshevik Revolution in
Russia, it was believed that
workers' revolution would
sweep into Europe and, eventually,
into the United States. But
it did not do so. Towards
the end of 1922 the Communist
International (Comintern)
began to consider what were
the reasons. On Lenin's initiative
a meeting was organised at
the Marx-Engels Institute
in Moscow.
LENIN
The
aim of the meeting was to
clarify the concept of, and
give concrete effect to, a
Marxist cultural revolution.
Amongst those present were
Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian
aristocrat, son of a banker,
who had become a Communist
during World War ; a good
Marxist theoretician he developed
the idea of 'Revolution and
Eros' - sexual instinct used
as an instrument of destruction)
and Willi Munzenberg (whose
proposed solution was to 'organise
the intellectuals and use
them to make Western civilisation
stink. Only then, after they
have corrupted all its values
and made life impossible,
can we impose the dictatorship
of the proletariat') 'It was',
said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007)
the conservative author and
co-founder of the 'National
Review', a meeting 'perhaps
more harmful to Western civilization
than the Bolshevik Revolution
itself'.
GEORG
LUKACS, WILLI MUNZENBERG
Lenin
died in 1924. By this time,
however, Stalin was beginning
to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs
and like-thinkers as 'revisionists'.
In June 1940, Münzenberg
fled to the south of France
where, on Stalin's orders,
a NKVD assassination squad
caught up with him and hanged
him from a tree.
In
the summer of 1924, after
being attacked for his writings
by the 5th Comintern Congress,
Lukacs moved to Germany, where
he chaired the first meeting
of a group of Communist-oriented
sociologists, a gathering
that was to lead to the foundation
of the Frankfurt School.
This
'School' (designed to put
flesh on their revolutionary
programme) was started at
the University of Frankfurt
in the Institut für Sozialforschung.
To begin with school and institute
were indistinguishable. In
1923 the Institute was officially
established, and funded by
Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil
was born in Argentina and
at the age of nine was sent
to attend school in Germany.
He attended the universities
in Tübingen and Frankfurt,
where he graduated with a
doctoral degree in political
science. While at these universities
he became increasingly interested
in socialism and Marxism.
According to the intellectual
historian Martin Jay, the
topic of his dissertation
was 'the practical problems
of implementing socialism'
Carl
Grünberg, the Institute's
director from 1923-1929, was
an avowed Marxist, although
the Institute did not have
any official party affiliations.
But in 1930 Max Horkheimer
assumed control and he believed
that Marx's theory should
be the basis of the Institute's
research. When Hitler came
to power, the Institut was
closed and its members, by
various routes, fled to the
United States and migrated
to major US universities --
Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis,
and California at Berkeley.
The
School included among its
members the 1960s guru of
the New Left Herbert Marcuse
(denounced by Pope Paul VI
for his theory of liberation
which 'opens the way for licence
cloaked as liberty'), Max
Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno,
the popular writer Erich Fromm,
Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen
Habermas - possibly the School's
most influential representative.
FELIX
WEIL, CARL GRUNBERG, HERBERT
MARCUSE, THEODOR ADORNO
ERIC
FROMM, JURGEN
HABERMAS WITH SOME OF HIS
STUDENTS, LEO
LOWENTHAL
Basically,
the Frankfurt School believed
that as long as an individual
had the belief - or even the
hope of belief - that his
divine gift of reason could
solve the problems facing
society, then that society
would never reach the state
of hopelessness and alienation
that they considered necessary
to provoke socialist revolution.
Their task, therefore, was
as swiftly as possible to
undermine the Judaeo-Christian
legacy. To do this they called
for the most negative destructive
criticism possible of every
sphere of life which would
be designed to de-stablise
society and bring down what
they saw as the 'oppressive'
order. Their policies, they
hoped, would spread like a
virus -- 'continuing the work
of the Western Marxists by
other means' as one of their
members noted.
To
further the advance of their
'quiet' cultural revolution
- but giving us no ideas about
their plans for the future
- the School recommended (among
other things):
1.
The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create
confusion
3. The teaching of sex and
homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools
and teachers' authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy
identity.
6. The promotion of excessive
drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system
with bias against victims
of crime
9. Dependency on the state
or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down
of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown
of the family.
One
of the main ideas of the Frankfurt
School was to exploit Freud's
idea of 'pansexualism' - the
search for pleasure, the exploitation
of the differences between
the sexes, the overthrowing
of traditional relationships
between men and women. To
further their aims they would
*
attack the authority of the
father, deny the specific
roles of father and mother,
and wrest away from families
their rights primary educators
of their children.
*
abolish differences in the
education of boys and girls
*
abolish all forms of male
dominance - hence the presence
of women in the armed forces
*
declare women to be an 'oppressed
class' and men as 'oppressors'
Munzenberg
summed up the Frankfurt School's
long-term operation thus:
'We will make the West so
corrupt that it stinks'.
The
School believed there were
two types of revolution: (a)
political and (b) cultural.
Cultural revolution demolishes
from within. 'Modern forms
of subjection are marked by
mildness'. They saw it as
a long-term project and kept
their sights clearly focused
on the family, education,
media, sex and popular culture
The
family
The
School's 'Critical Theory'
preached that the 'authoritarian
personality' is a product
of the patriarchal family
- an idea directly linked
to Engels' Origins of the
Family, Private Property and
the State, which promoted
matriarchy. Already Karl Marx
had written, in the Communist
Manifesto, about the radical
notion of a 'community of
women' and in The German
Ideaology of 1845, written
disparagingly about the idea
of the family as the basic
unit of society. This was
one of the basic tenets of
the 'Critical Theory' : the
necessity of breaking down
the contemporary family. The
Institute scholars preached
that 'Even a partial breakdown
of parental authority in the
family might tend to increase
the readiness of a coming
generation to accept social
change.'
Following
Karl Marx, the School stressed
how the 'authoritarian personality'
is a product of the patriarchal
family -- it was Marx who
wrote so disparagingly about
the idea of the family being
the basic unit of society.
All this prepared the way
for the warfare against the
masculine gender promoted
by Marcuse under the guise
of 'women's liberation' and
by the New Left movement in
the 1960s.
They
proposed transforming our
culture into a female-dominated
one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich,
one of their members, wrote
in The Mass Psychology
of Fascism that matriarchy
was the only genuine family
type of 'natural society.'
Eric Fromm was also an active
advocate of matriarchal theory.
Masculinity and femininity,
he claimed, were not reflections
of 'essential' sexual differences,
as the romantics had thought
but were derived instead from
differences in life functions,
which were in part socially
determined.' His dogma was
the precedent for the radical
feminist pronouncements that,
today, appear in nearly every
major newspaper and television
programme.
The
revolutionaries knew exactly
what they wanted to do and
how to do it. They have succeeded.
Education
Lord
Bertrand Russell joined with
the Frankfurt School in their
effort at mass social engineering
and spilled the beans in his
1951 book, The Impact of
Science on Society. He
wrote: 'Physiology and psychology
afford fields for scientific
technique which still await
development'. The importance
of mass psychology 'has been
enormously increased by the
growth of modern methods of
propaganda. Of these the most
influential is what is called
'education.' . . The social
psychologists of the future
will have a number of classes
of school children on whom
they will try different methods
of producing an unshakable
conviction that snow is black.
Various results will soon
be arrived at. First, that
the influence of home is obstructive.
Second, that not much can
be done unless indoctrination
begins before the age of ten.
Third, that verses set to
music and repeatedly intoned
are very effective. Fourth,
that the opinion that snow
is white must be held to show
a morbid taste for eccentricity.
But I anticipate. It is for
future scientists to make
these maxims precise and discover
exactly how much it costs
per head to make children
believe that snow is black,
and how much less it would
cost to make them believe
it is dark gray . . When the
technique has been perfected,
every government that has
been in charge of education
for a generation will be able
to control its subjects securely
without the need of armies
or policemen.''
Writing
in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine,
[The Frankfurt School and
Political Correctness]
Michael Minnicino observed
how the heirs of Marcuse and
Adorno now completely dominate
the universities, 'teaching
their own students to replace
reason with 'Politically Correct'
ritual exercises. There are
very few theoretical books
on arts, letters, or language
published today in the United
States or Europe which do
not openly acknowledge their
debt to the Frankfurt School.
The witchhunt on today's campuses
is merely the implementation
of Marcuse's concept of 'repressive
toleration'-'tolerance for
movements from the left, but
intolerance for movements
from the right'-enforced by
the students of the Frankfurt
School'.
Drugs
Dr.
Timothy Leary gave us another
glimpse into the mind of the
Frankfurt School in his account
of the work of the Harvard
University Psychedelic Drug
Project, 'Flashback'. He quoted
a conversation that he had
with Aldous Huxley: ``These
brain drugs, mass produced
in the laboratories, will
bring about vast changes in
society. This will happen
with or without you or me.
All we can do is spread the
word. The obstacle to this
evolution, Timothy, is the
Bible'. Leary then went on:
``We had run up against the
Judeo-Christian commitment
to one God, one religion,
one reality, that has cursed
Europe for centuries and America
since our founding days. Drugs
that open the mind to multiple
realities inevitably lead
to a polytheistic view of
the universe. We sensed that
the time for a new humanist
religion based on intelligence,
good-natured pluralism and
scientific paganism had arrived.''
One
of the directors of the Authoritarian
Personality project, R. Nevitt
Sanford, played a pivotal
role in the usage of psychedelic
drugs. In 1965, he wrote in
a book issued by the publishing
arm of the UK's Tavistock
Institute:`The nation, seems
to be fascinated by our 40,000
or so drug addicts who are
seen as alarmingly wayward
people who must be curbed
at all costs by expensive
police activity. Only an uneasy
Puritanism could support the
practice of focusing on the
drug addicts (rather than
our 5 million alcoholics)
and treating them as a police
problem instead of a medical
one, while suppressing harmless
drugs such as marijuana and
peyote along with the dangerous
ones.'' The leading propagandists
of today's drug lobby base
their argument for legalization
on the same scientific quackery
spelled out all those years
ago by Dr. Sanford.
Such
propagandists include the
multi-billionaire atheist
George Soros who chose, as
one of his first domestic
programs, to fund efforts
to challenge the efficacy
of America's $37-billion-a-year
war on drugs. The Soros-backed
Lindesmith Center serves as
a leading voice for Americans
who want to decriminalize
drug use. 'Soros is the 'Daddy
Warbucks of drug legalization,'
claimed Joseph Califano Jr.
of Columbia University's National
Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse' (The Nation, Sep 2,
1999).
Music,
television & popular culture
Adorno
was to become head of a 'music
studies' unit, where in his
Theory of Modern Music
he promoted the prospect
of unleashing atonal and other
popular music as a weapon
to destroy society, degenerate
forms of music to promote
mental illness. He said the
US could be brought to its
knees by the use of radio
and television to promote
a culture of pessimism and
despair - by the late 1930s
he (together with Horkheimer)
had migrated to Hollywood.
The
expansion of violent video-games
also well supported the School's
aims.
Sex
In
his book The Closing of
the American Mind, Alan
Bloom observed how 'Marcuse
. appealed to university students
in the sixties with a combination
of Marx and Freud. In Eros
and Civilization and One
Dimensional Man Marcuse
promised that the overcoming
of capitalism and its false
consciousness will result
in a society where the greatest
satisfactions are sexual.
Rock music touches the same
chord in the young. Free sexual
expression, anarchism, mining
of the irrational unconscious
and giving it free reign are
what they have in common'.
The
media
The
modern media - not least Arthur
'Punch' Sulzberger Jnr., who
took charge of the New
York Times in 1992 - drew
greatly on the Frankfurt School's
study The Authoritarian
Personality. (New York:
Harper, 1950). In his book
Arrogance, (Warner
Books, 1993) former CBS News
reporter Bernard Goldberg
noted of Sulzberger that he
'still believes in all those
old sixties notions about
'liberation' and 'changing
the world man' . . . In fact,
the Punch years have been
a steady march down PC Boulevard,
with a newsroom fiercely dedicated
to every brand of diversity
except the intellectual kind'.
In
1953 the Institute moved back
to the University of Frankfurt.
Adorno died in 1955 and Horkheimer
in 1973. The Institute of
Social Research continued,
but what was known as the
Frankfurt School did not.
The 'cultural Marxism' that
has since taken hold of our
schools and universities -
that 'political correctness',
which has been destroying
our family bonds, our religious
tradition and our entire culture
-sprang from the Frankfurt
School.
It
was these intellectual Marxists
who, later, during the anti-Vietnam
demonstrations, coined the
phrase, 'make love, not war';
it was these intellectuals
who promoted the dialectic
of 'negative' criticism; it
was these theoreticians who
dreamed of a utopia where
their rules governed. It was
their concept that led to
the current fad for the rewriting
of history, and to the vogue
for 'deconstruction'. Their
mantras: 'sexual differences
are a contract; if it feels
good, do it; do your own thing'.
In
an address at the US Naval
Academy in August 1999, Dr
Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN
(Ret)., gave a background
briefing on the Frankfurt
School, reminding his audience
that it was the 'foot soldiers'
of the Frankfurt School who
introduced the 'sensitivity
training' techniques used
in public schools over the
past 30 years (and now employed
by the US military to educate
the troops about 'sexual harassment').
During 'sensitivity' training
teachers were told not to
teach but to 'facilitate.'
Classrooms became centres
of self-examination where
children talked about their
own subjective feelings. This
technique was designed to
convince children they were
the sole authority in their
own lives.
Atkinson
continued: 'The Authoritarian
personality,' studied by the
Frankfurt School in the 1940s
and 1950s in America, prepared
the way for the subsequent
warfare against the masculine
gender promoted by Herbert
Marcuse and his band of social
revolutionaries under the
guise of 'women's liberation'
and the New Left movement
in the 1960s. The evidence
that psychological techniques
for changing personality is
intended to mean emasculation
of the American male is provided
by Abraham Maslow, founder
of Third Force Humanist Psychology
and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic
classroom, who wrote that,
'. . . the next step in personal
evolution is a transcendence
of both masculinity and femininity
to general humanness.'
On
April 17th, 1962, Maslow gave
a lecture to a group of nuns
at Sacred Heart, a Catholic
women's college in Massachusetts.
He noted in a diary entry
how the talk had been very
'successful,' but he found
that very fact troubling.
'They shouldn't applaud me,'
he wrote, 'they should attack.
If they were fully aware of
what I was doing, they would
[attack]' (Journals, p. 157).
ABRAHAM
MASLOW
The
network
In
her booklet Sex & Social
Engineering (Family Education
Trust 1994) Valerie Riches
observed how in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, there were
intensive parliamentary campaigns
taking place emanating from
a number of organisations
in the field of birth control
(i.e., contraception, abortion,
sterilisation). 'From an analysis
of their annual reports, it
became apparent that a comparatively
small number of people were
involved to a surprising degree
in an array of pressure groups.
This network was not only
linked by personnel, but by
funds, ideology and sometimes
addresses: it was also backed
by vested interests and supported
by grants in some cases by
government departments. At
the heart of the network was
the Family Planning Association
(FPA) with its own collection
of offshoots. What we unearthed
was a power structure with
enormous influence.
'Deeper
investigation revealed that
the network, in fact extended
further afield, into eugenics,
population control, birth
control, sexual and family
law reforms, sex and health
education. Its tentacles reached
out to publishing houses,
medical, educational and research
establishments, women's organisations
and marriage guidance -- anywhere
where influence could be exerted.
It appeared to have great
influence over the media,
and over permanent officials
in relevant government departments,
out of all proportion to the
numbers involved.
'During
our investigations, a speaker
at a Sex Education Symposium
in Liverpool outlined tactics
of sex education saying: 'if
we do not get into sex education,
children will simply follow
the mores of their parents'.
The fact that sex education
was to be the vehicle for
peddlers of secular humanism
soon became apparent
'However,
at that time the power of
the network and the full implications
of its activities were not
fully understood. It was thought
that the situation was confined
to Britain. The international
implications had not been
grasped.
'Soon
after, a little book was published
with the intriguing title
The Men Behind Hitler --
A German Warning to the World.
Its thesis was that the eugenics
movement, which had gained
popularity early in the century,
had gone underground following
the holocaust in Nazi Germany,
but was still active and functioning
through organizations promoting
abortion, euthanasia, sterilization,
mental health, etc. The author
urged the reader to look at
his home country and neighbouring
countries, for he would surely
find that members and committees
of these organizations would
cross-check to a remarkable
extent.
'Other
books and papers from independent
sources later confirmed this
situation. . . . A remarkable
book was also published in
America which documented the
activities of the Sex Information
and Education Council of the
United States (SIECUS). It
was entitled The SIECUS
Circle A Humanist Revolution.
SIECUS was set up in 1964
and lost no time in engaging
in a programme of social engineering
by means of sex education
in the schools. Its first
executive director was Mary
Calderone, who was also closely
linked to Planned Parenthood,
the American equivalent of
the British FPA. According
to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone
supported sentiments and theories
put forward by Rudolph Dreikus,
a humanist, such as:
*
merging or reversing the sexes
or sex roles;
* liberating children from
their families;
* abolishing the family as
we know it'.
In
their book Mind Siege,
(Thomas Nelson, 2000) Tim
LaHaye and David A. Noebel
confirmed Riches's findings
of an international network.
'The leading authorities of
Secular Humanism may be pictured
as the starting lineup of
a baseball team: pitching
is John Dewey; catching is
Isaac Asimov; first base is
Paul Kurtz; second base is
Corliss Lamont; third base
is Bertrand Russell; shortstop
is Julian Huxley; left fielder
is Richard Dawkins; center
fielder is Margaret Sanger;
right fielder is Carl Rogers;
manager is 'Christianity is
for losers' Ted Turner; designated
hitter is Mary Calderone;
utility players include the
hundreds listed in the back
of Humanist Manifesto I and
II, including Eugenia C. Scott,
Alfred Kinsey, Abraham Maslow,
Erich Fromm, Rollo May, and
Betty Friedan.
'In
the grandstands sit the sponsoring
or sustaining organizations,
such as the . . . the Frankfurt
School; the left wing of the
Democratic Party; the Democratic
Socialists of America; Harvard
University; Yale University;
University of Minnesota; University
of California (Berkeley);
and two thousand other colleges
and universities.'
A
practical example
A
practical example of how the
tidal wave of Maslow-think
is engulfing English schools
was revealed in an article
in the NACF's Catholic
Family newspaper (August
2000), where James Caffrey
warned about the Citizenship
(PSHE) programme which was
shortly to be drafted into
the National Curriculum. 'We
need to look carefully at
the vocabulary used in this
new subject', he wrote, 'and,
more importantly, discover
the philosophical basis on
which it is founded. The clues
to this can be found in the
word 'choice' which occurs
frequently in the Citizenship
documentation and the great
emphasis placed on pupils'
discussing and 'clarifying'
their own views, values and
choices about any given issue.
This is nothing other than
the concept known as 'Values
Clarification' - a concept
anathema to Catholicism, or
indeed, to Judaism and Islam.
'This
concept was pioneered in California
in the 1960's by psychologists
William Coulson, Carl Rogers
and Abraham Maslow. It was
based on 'humanistic' psychology,
in which patients were regarded
as the sole judge of their
actions and moral behaviour.
Having pioneered the technique
of Values Clarification the
psychologists introduced it
into schools and other institutions
such as convents and seminaries
- with disastrous results.
Convents emptied, religious
lost their vocations and there
was wholesale loss of belief
in God. Why? Because Catholic
institutions are founded on
absolute beliefs in, for example,
the Creed and the Ten Commandments.
Values Clarification supposes
a moral relativism in which
there is no absolute right
or wrong and no dependence
on God.
'This
same system is to be introduced
to the vulnerable minds of
infants, juniors and adolescents
in the years 2000+. The underlying
philosophy of Values Clarification
holds that for teachers to
promote virtues such as honesty,
justice or chastity constitutes
indoctrination of children
and 'violates' their moral
freedom. It is urged that
children should be free to
choose their own values; the
teacher must merely 'facilitate'
and must avoid all moralising
or criticising. As a barrister
commented recently on worrying
trends in Australian education,
'The core theme of values
clarification is that there
are no right or wrong values.
Values education does not
seek to identify and transmit
'right' values, teaching of
the Church, especially the
papal encyclical Evangelium
Vitae.
'In
the absence of clear moral
guidance, children naturally
make choices based on feelings.
Powerful peer pressure, freed
from the values which stem
from a divine source, ensure
that 'shared values' sink
to the lowest common denominator.
References to environmental
sustainability lead to a mindset
where anti-life arguments
for population control are
present- ed as being both
responsible and desirable.
Similarly, 'informed choices'
about health and lifestyles
are euphemisms for attitudes
antithetical to Christian
views on motherhood, fatherhood,
the sacrament of marriage
and family life. Values Clarification
is covert and dangerous. It
underpins the entire rationale
of Citizenship (PSHE) and
is to be introduced by statute
into the UK soon. It will
give young people secular
values and imbue them with
the attitude that they alone
hold ultimate authority and
judgement about their lives.
No Catholic school can include
this new subject as formulated
in the Curriculum 2000 document
within its current curriculum
provision. Dr William Coulson
recognised the psychological
damage Rogers' technique inflicted
on youngsters and rejected
it, devoting his life to exposing
its dangers. Should those
in authority in Catholic education
not do likewise, as 'Citizenship'
makes its deadly approach'?
If
we allow their subversion
of values and interests to
continue, we will, in future
generations, lose all that
our ancestors suffered and
died for. We are forewarned,
says Atkinson. A reading of
history (it is all in mainstream
historical accounts) tells
us that we are about to lose
the most precious thing we
have -- our individual freedoms.
Big
Society
And
now in Britain we see the
influence of the Frankfurt
School edging even further
forwards in the form of the
Alinsky-inspired 'Big Society'.
Yet
another 'transformational
Marxist', Saul Alinsky (1909-1972)
was a radical Chicago activist
- idolized by Barack Obama
- who had made a study of
Antonio Gramsci's blueprint
for social transformation
and avidly promoted the Frankfurt
School's strategy of the 'long
march through the institutions'.
He
was convinced that the overthrow
of western society should
be carried out , not noisily,
but with stealth and deception.
It was necessary, he believed,
to cultivate a down-to-earth
image of pragmatism and centrism;
he cultivated the rich and
influential; politicians fell
under his spell. He won the
hearts of globalist-leaders
around the world. 'True revolutionaries
do not flaunt their radicalism,'
Alinsky taught, 'they cut
their hair, put on suits and
infiltrate the system from
within'. The trick, as he
saw it, was to penetrate existing
institutions: churches, unions,
political parties. He even
spent time in Milan with Cardinal
Montini (later Pope Paul VI)
at the instigation of Jacques
Maritain (cf. Faithful Citizens,
Austen Ivereigh, Longman &
Todd)
'Change'
became his battle-cry. In
the opening paragraph of his
book A Practical Primer for
Realistic Radicals (published
a year before his death and
dedicated to Lucifer, 'the
first radical known to man
who rebelled against the establishment
and did it so effectively
that he at least won his own
kingdom') he wrote, 'What
follows is for those who want
to change the world from what
it is to what they believe
it should be. The Prince was
written by Machiavelli for
the Haves on how to hold power.
Rules for Radicals is written
for the Have-Nots on how to
take it away'
'Change'
meant turning society inside
out, and this would be accomplished
by duping the idealistic middle-classes,
by winning their trust with
fine-sounding phrases about
morality. And all this, he
declared, would come about
through the work of 'People's
Organisations'.
'These
People's Organisations'' wrote
John Perazzo in FrontPageMagazine.com,
'were to be composed largely
of discontented individuals
who believed that society
was replete with injustices
that prevented them from being
able to live satisfying lives.
Such organisations, Alinsky
advised, should not be imported
from the outside into a community,
but rather should be staffed
by locals who, with some guidance
from trained radical organisers,
could set their own agendas'
And
so it was that in the UK in
2009 that David Cameron, apparently
mesmerised by his friend Barack
Obama, announced that he would
help push forward the decades-long
march by endorsing the Alinsky
programme by creating a 'neighbourhood
army' of 5,000 full-time professional
'community organisers'. Could
he possibly have realised
what he was doing?
In
a February 2009 Investors
Business Daily article entitled
'Alinski's Rules: Must Reading
In Obama Era,' Phyllis Schalfly
wrote that Alinsky's 'tenth
rule of the ethics of means
and ends' is: 'you do what
you can with what you have
and clothe it with moral arguments.'
He doesn't ignore traditional
moral standards or dismiss
them as unnecessary. He is
much more devious; he teaches
his followers that 'Moral
rationalization is indispensable
at all times of action whether
to justify the selection or
the use of ends or means.
. . '.
''The
organizer's first job is to
create the issues or problems,'
and 'organizations must be
based on many issues.' The
organizer 'must first rub
raw the resentments of the
people of the community; fan
the latent hostilities of
many of the people to the
point of overt expression.
He must search out controversy
and issues, rather than avoid
them, for unless there is
controversy people are not
concerned enough to act. .
. . An organizer must stir
up dissatisfaction and discontent.''
As
his fervent acolyte Hillary
Clinton enthusiastically pointed
out, in a 1969 Wellesley College
thesis, 'if the ideals Alinsky
espouses were actualised,
the result would be social
revolution'.
Conclusion
'What
we are at present experiencing',
writes Philip Trower in a
letter to the author, 'is
a blend of two schools of
thought; the Frankfurt School
and the liberal tradition
going back to the 18th century
enlightenment. The Frankfurt
School has of course its remote
origins in the 18th century
enlightenment. But like Lenin's
Marxism it is a breakaway
movement. The immediate aims
of both classical liberalism
and the Frankfurt School have
been in the main the same
(vide your eleven points above)
but the final end is different.
For liberals they lead to
'improving' and 'perfecting'
western culture, for the Frankfurt
School to bringing about its
destruction.
'Unlike
hard-line Marxists, the Frankfurt
School do not make any plans
for the future. (But) the
Frankfurt School seems to
be more far-sighted that our
classical liberals and secularists.
At least they see the moral
deviations they promote will
in the end make social life
impossible or intolerable.
But this leaves a big question
mark over what a future conducted
by them would be like'.
And
so, the Quiet Revolution rolls
forward.
Tim
Matthews
Addendum
Archbishop
Aguer denounces invasion
of ideologies in Argentinean
schools
La
Plata, Argentina, Jun 24,
2009 / 11:31 pm (CNA).-
Archbishop Hector Aguer of
La Plata has denounced the
government for imposing new
materials on Argentinean schools
that are based on controversial
ideologies instead of the
comprehensive formation of
students.
In
his television program, “Keys
to a Better World,” the
archbishop explained that
the State is imposing a particular
ideology that is evident in
the materials being distributed
to teachers and in some “policies
of the State” that are
being established the Ministries
of Health and Education.
“The
new material, ‘Building
the Citizenry,’ imposes
a critical theory that is
intended to make the child
or the student into a miniature
critical theorist in order
to change society, thus altering
the order that is supposed
to exist in the transmission
of knowledge. Basic subjects
are neglected and instead
this critical perspective
that is markedly ideological
is emphasized,” the archbishop
said.
“The
source of inspiration is the
neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt
School. Do we want
illiterate revolutionaries
to come out of Argentinean
schools?” he asked.
After
denouncing the implementation
of gender ideology for sexual
education in schools, the
archbishop explained that
“according to this perspective,
sexuality does not belong
to the nature of the person,
it is not a biological, psychological,
affective and spiritual reality,
but rather an historical and
socio-cultural construct.
One is a man or a woman not
because one was born such,
but because one was made such
by the culture, which molds
the gender of persons.
“A
spilt between sex and gender
is being proposed, such that
one can speak of diverse sexual
options, all equally valid,”
Archbishop Aguer criticized.
He
also went on to address the
lack of appreciation for motherhood.
“It’s curious how,
in the name of promoting women,
the feminine figure is denigrated;
above all, her maternal vocation
is not accepted, because maternity
is seen as a burden, since
sexuality is totally separated
from marriage ...What kind
of education can be founded
upon these principles?”
the archbishop asked.
Top
Munich
08
'A
LOVE
WHICH
IS
TOTAL'
ON
FRIDAY,
,
October
3rd,
2008,
an
International
Congress
for
Life
was
held
in
Munich
(Germany)
to
mark
the
occasion
of
the
40th
anniversary
of
Humanae
Vitae.
On
Saturday
October
4th
the
peaceful
public
procession
of
'1000
Crosses
for
Life'
was
continually
disrupted
by
demonstrations
by
'pro-choice'
activists
and
neo
Nazis.The
police
presence
was
massive.
The
activists
broke
the
windows
of
the
offices
of
the
Lebenszentrum
(Centre
for
Life),
The
press
largely
ignored
the
troubles,
describing
the
pro-lifers
as
'fundamental
Christians
and
neo-Nazi
sympathisers'
WINDOW
OF
MUNICH
PRO-LIFE
OFFICES
SHATTERED
BY
PRO-CHOICE
DEMONSTRATORS
The
programme
at
St
Maximilian
Church
was
as
follows
7.oo
pm
Pontificial
Mass
with
H.E.
Archbishop
Dr
Joseph
Kurtz
from
Louisville
/
Kentucky,
Archbishop
of
Louisville,
Kentucky,
USA.
Member
of
the
Committee
on
Pro-Life
Activities
for
the
US
Conference
of
Catholic
Bishops,
Member
of
the
Priority
Task
Force
on
Strengthening
Marriage
for
the
US
Conference
of
Catholic
Bishops
Later
there
was
a
talk
given
by
H.
E.
Dr.
Joseph
Kurtz:
"Humanae
Vitae:
a
church
document
"
anti
lust"
-
or
a
Living
Word?"
Saturday,
October
4th
:
At
9.30
am.
Introduction
by
Wolfgang
Hering,
Munich,
Founder
of
the
Lebenszentrum
(Centre
for
Life),
Munich
9.45
am
Talk
by
Dr.
Thomas
Ward
from
England,
member
of
the
Papal
Academy
for
Life:
"Man,
the
battle
and
Humanae
Vitae"
(text
below)
11.00
am
Talk
by
Inge
Thürkauf,
Switzerland,
actress
and
publicist
"Woman,
love
and
Humanae
Vitae"
Afterwards
there
was
a
discussion
until
around
12.30
pm
2.00
pm
Holy
Mass
with
H.E.
Archbishop
Dr
Joseph
Kurtz
in
the
church
"Maria
vom
Guten
Rat"
(Mary
of
Good
Council)
Sermon
Subject:
"Humanae
Vitae
-
prophetic
words
by
Pope
Paul
VI"
4.00
pm
"1000
Crosses
for
Life"-
Peaceful
Public
Prayer
Procession
6.30
Closing
Ceremony
at
Marienplatz
Sunday
5th
October
10.00
am
Talk
by
Prof.
Dr.
Manfred
Spieker,
Osnabrück:
"A
Love
which
is
Total
-
From
Humanae
Vitae
to
Evangelium
Vitae"
10.45
am
Talk
by
Dr.
Gabriele
Marx,
Weinheim/
Bergstraße,
gynecologist
and
publicist
"The
Pill
-
ascent
and
descent"
Discussion
ending
ca
12.30
pm
Der
Man,
der
Kampfe
und
Humanae
Vitae
Text
of
address
by
Dr
Thomas
Ward
President
of
the
National
Association
of
Catholic
Families
DR
THOMAS
WARD
Eure
Exzellenz,sehr
geehrte
Damen
und
Herren,
ich
danke
Ihnen,
das
Sie
mich
eingeladen
haben
zu
dieser
wichtigen
Konferenz,
die
Humanae
Vitae
veranstaltet,und
das
im
Herzen
des
katholiscehn
Deutschlands,
wo
unser
beliebter
Papst
Benedikt
in
Munchen
einst
Erzbishof
war.
Your
Excellency,
Ladies
and
Gentlemen,
thank
you
for
having
invited
me
here
to
this
very
significant
conference
celebrating
40
years
of
Humanae
vitae
in
the
heart
of
Catholic
Germany
.
It
is
a
great
privilege
to
be
here.
Let
me
introduce
myself.
I
am
a
Catholic,
a
husband,
father
of
seven
children
two
of
whom
are
with
God.
My
wife,
Mary
is
also
a
doctor
and
we
have
seven
little
grandchildren.
I
am
a
family
doctor
and
I
am
totally
pro-life
and
pro-family,
without
compromise
but
also
without
illusions
about
the
difficulties
and
dangers
involved
in
this
extremely
minority
position.
May
I
appeal
to
you
to
give
vigorous
moral
and
practical
support
to
any
German
pro-life
doctor
who
comes
under
attack.
Such
doctors
in
a
very
real
sense
live
your
deeply
held
beliefs
on
a
daily
basis.
A
particular
part
of
my
own
Kampfe
was
that
I
played
a
significant
role
in
fighting
the
British
section
of
the
World
Population
Lobby
when
in
1974
it
manipulated
the
removal
of
the
parents'
right
to
protect
their
own
children
from
contraception
and
abortion.
But
more
on
this
later.
Their
target
-
yourselves
My
first
aim
as
a
father
and
a
family
doctor
is
to
help
you
understand
the
nature
and
background
of
the
present
threats
to
your
own
families
in
the
dominant
culture.
Very
many
of
these
dangers
stem
directly
and
indirectly
from
the
rejection
by
Catholics
of
Humanae
Vitae.
Please
note
that
I
am
speaking
on
the
basis
of
forty
years
medical
practice
in
England
and
from
an
Anglo-Saxon
perspective
i.e.
I
am
speaking
from
the
seed
bed
of
today's
Culture
of
Death.
What
is
at
stake
for
you
in
this
society?
The
family
as
a
essential
concept?
Yes
but
more
importantly
what
is
now
at
stake
is
your
own
family
and
that
because
of
the
orchestrated
attack
throughout
the
world
against
the
institution
of
your
marriages
and
your
families.
When
I
speak
of
marriage
I
mean
only
between
a
man
and
a
woman,
exclusive,
open
to
life
and
life
long.
The
epicentre
of
this
attack
on
our
marriages
and
our
families
is
on
life
itself.
These
are
the
stages
of
the
attack
Stage
1.
The
attack
on
the
transmission
of
human
life.
Contraception
destroys
the
transmission
of
life
by
artificially
separating
the
two
elements
of
sexual
intercourse
physical
union
and
procreation.
Stage
2.
The
intra-uterine
attack
on
life
after
conception
i.e.
before
and
after
nidation.
Here
the
abortifacient
modes
of
action
of
some
oral
"
contraceptives"
risk
the
monthly
destruction
of
human
beings
before
their
implantation
in
the
uterus.
(For
an
unequalled
explanation
of
the
modes
of
action
of
the
Pill
see
Le
Terrorisme
à
visage
humain,
by
Professeur
Michel
Schooyans
of
the
University
of
Louvain
www.fxdeguibert.com
)*.
Of
course
surgical
and
other
forms
of
abortion
kill
babies
at
a
later
stage.
Stage
3.
The
third
stage
of
the
attack
on
life
occurs
when
the
State
removes
the
primary,
inalienable
right
of
parents
to
protect
their
own
child
most
often
called
the
right
of
primary
educator.
In
the
great
debate
surrounding
life
I
believe
that
there
is
one
work
of
fundamental
importance
and
I
would
like
to
quote
from
it.
'Therefore
We
base
Our
words
on
the
first
principles
of
a
human
and
Christian
doctrine
of
marriage
when
We
are
obliged
once
more
to
declare
that
the
direct
interruption
of
the
generative
process
already
begun
and,
above
all,
all
direct
abortion,
even
for
therapeutic
reasons,
are
to
be
absolutely
excluded
as
lawful
means
of
regulating
the
number
of
children.
(14)
Equally
to
be
condemned,
as
the
magisterium
of
the
Church
has
affirmed
on
many
occasions,
is
direct
sterilization,
whether
of
the
man
or
of
the
woman,
whether
permanent
or
temporary.
(15)
Similarly
excluded
is
any
action
which
either
before,
at
the
moment
of,
or
after
sexual
intercourse,
is
specifically
intended
to
prevent
procreation-whether
as
an
end
or
as
a
means.
(16)
This
was
the
voice
of
the
Vicar
of
Christ,
Pope
Paul
VI
in
Humanae
Vitae.
In
condemning
these
immoral
means
of
the
regulation
of
birth
he
condemned
himself
to
ridicule
and
almost
complete
rejection.
*
The
interruption
of
pregnancy
by
the
administration
of
oestrogen
was
reported
as
far
back
as
in
1926.
Proceedings
of
the
Eight
International
Conference
of
the
International
Planned
Parenthood
Federation.
Santiago
Chile,
9-15
April
1967
Planned
Parenthood-a
duty
and
a
human
right.,
IPPF
December
1967
Printed
by
Hertford
Stephen
Austin
&
Sons
Ltd.
(This
was
confirmed
by
Pincus
in
1935)
The
philosophers
of
the
attack
Rev
Thomas
Malthus
1766
-
1834
A
clergyman
of
the
Church
of
England.
Between
1798
and
1826
Malthus
published
six
editions
of
his
treatise
An
Essay
on
the
Principle
of
Population.
In
this
he
wrote
that
population
would
always
increase
more
rapidly
than
food
supply
and
the
poor
should
be
sexually
abstinent.
Thus
from
its
very
beginning
of
this
ideology
there
is
the
concept
of
there
being
lesser
human
beings,
an
idea
which
lies
at
the
base
of
abortion,
cloning,
human
hybrids
and
the
Untermenschen
of
the
concentration
camps.
Charles
Darwin
1809-1882
Darwin
wrote
The
Origin
of
the
Species
in
1859.
He
also
wrote
The
Descent
of
Man
1871
'With
savages
the
weak
of
mind
or
body
are
soon
eliminated
………Thus
the
weak
members
of
society
propagate
their
kind
.
No
one……...will
doubt
that
this
must
be
highly
injurious
to
the
race
of
man."
Here
appears
the
idea
of
the
use
of
savage
force
which
was
quite
logically
to
develop
into
the
tyranny
of
forced
abortion
in
India
and
China
and
the
eugenic
policy
of
Nazi
Germany.
Darwin
coined
the
slogan
"the
survival
of
the
fittest"
Sir
Francis
Galton
1822
-
1911
Darwin's
cousin
coined
the
word
"eugenics"
i.e.
selective
breeding
to
improve
the
race.
Galton
formulated
the
"science"
of
eugenics
and
founded
the
Eugenics
Society
in
London
1908
Church
of
England
Lambeth
Conference,
August
14,
1930
Without
precedent
in
the
history
of
Christianity,
the
Church
of
England
on
August
14,
1930
permitted
the
use
of
contraceptives
at
the
discretion
of
married
couples
(voting
193
to
67
with
14
abstentions).
The
Archbishop
of
Canterbury
Rowan
Williams
has
publicly
stated
that
since
his
church
has
accepted
the
moral
admissibility
of
the
separation
of
the
procreative
from
the
unitive
element
of
sexual
intercourse
in
contraception
it
is
only
logical
for
it
to
accept
the
morality
of
homosexual
acts.
Pope
Pius
XI
On
December
31st
1930
in
his
response
to
the
Anglican
position
Pope
Pius
XI
in
the
Encyclical
Casti
Connubii
taught
unequivocally
that
artificial
contraception
was
an
intrinsically
evil
act
and
as
such
forbidden
.
Aldous
Huxley
Another
reaction
to
the
Anglican
decision
was
written
in
1932
by
Aldous
Huxley,
an
English
atheist.
His
basic
premise
was
that
with
contraception
society,
as
we
know
it,
would
fail
to
survive.
The
book
is
set
in
the
London
of
AD
2540
where
there
are
abortion
clinics,
IVF
and
cloning
factories
that
bring
children
into
existence.
Most
women
are
sterile
and
they
are
drilled
to
use
contraceptive
cartridges
from
childhood.
In
2540!
ALONG
THE
PROCESSION
ROUTE
ARCHBISHOP
KURTZ
JOINS
IN
THE
PEACEFUL
PRAYER
PROCESSION,
ACCOMPANIED
BY
NEO-NAZI
&
HOMOSEXUALIST
CROWD
POLICE
KEEP
EYE
ON
COLOURFULLY-DRESSED
ANTI-LIFE
&
HOMOSEXUALIST
DEMONTRATORS
MUNICH
POLICE
VIDEO
THE
VOCIFEROUS
ANTI-LIFE
AND
NEO-NAZIS
DEMONSTRATORS
ARCHBISHOP
KURTZ
RINGS
MOURNING
BELL
&
MEMORIAL
ROSES
FOR
THE
UNBORN
CAST
INTO
THE
RIVER
The
agents
of
the
attack
Marie
Stopes
1880
-
1958
Marie
Stopes
founded
a
birth-control
clinic
in
London
which
led
to
the
British
Family
Planning
Association
which
became
one
of
the
two
main
founding
member
of
the
International
Planned
Parenthood
Federation,
IPPF.
She
was
a
eugenicist
who
in
her
book
Radiant
Motherhood
(1920)
demanded:
"sterilization
of
those
totally
unfit
for
parenthood
to
be
made
an
immediate
possibility,
indeed
made
compulsory.
…….….Society
allows
the
diseased,
the
racially
negligent,
the
thriftless,
the
careless
and
the
feeble
minded,
the
very
lowest
and
worst
members
of
the
community
to
produce
innumerable
tens
of
thousands
of
stunted,
warped
inferior
infants…a
large
proportion
of
these...drain
the
resources
of
the
classes
above
them
….The
better
classes,
freed
from
the
cost
of
institutions
hospitals,
prisons
etc…would
be
able
to
afford
to
enlarge
their
own
families."
Even
more
controversially
,
in
her
book
The
Control
of
Parenthood
(1920)
she
declared
that
"utopia
could
be
reached
in
my
life
time
had
I
the
power
to
issue
inviolable
edicts.
..
(I
would
legislate
compulsory
sterilization
of
the
insane,
feebleminded
simple
...
revolutionaries...
half-castes.
)"
Stopes
even
cut
her
son
Harry
out
of
her
will
for
marrying
a
near-sighted
woman.
Margaret
Sanger
1879
-
1966
In
1923,
under
the
auspices
of
the
American
Birth
control
League
Margaret
Sanger
established
the
Clinical
Research
Bureau,
the
first
legal
birth
control
clinic
in
the
U.S.
It
received
crucial
grants
from
John
D.
Rockefeller,
Jr.'s
Bureau
of
Social
Hygiene
from
1924
onwards.
These
were
made
anonymously
to
avoid
public
exposure
of
the
Rockefeller
name
with
her
cause.
The
Rockefeller
family
also
consistently
supported
her
ongoing
efforts
in
regard
to
population
control.
She
founded
the
Planned
Parenthood
Federation
of
America
and
later
in
1952
the
International
Planned
Parenthood
Federation.
She
founded
the
Margaret
Sanger
Research
Bureau
which
financed
the
development
of
the
oral
contraceptive.
She
coined
the
slogan
"Birth
Control,
to
create
a
race
of
Thoroughbreds"
Margaret
Sanger
was
a
totalitarian
eugenicist
who
Drew
up
a
Plan
for
Peace
(1932),
which
included
the
following
recommendations.
*
The application of a stern
and rigid policy of sterilisation
and segregation to that
grade of the population
whose progeny were already
tainted or whose inheritance
is such that objectionable
traits may be transmitted
to their offspring…..
*
To apportion farmlands
and homesteads for these
segregated persons where
they would be taught to
work under competent instructors
for the period of their
entire lives.
She
was
a
racist.
"It
is
said
that
the
aboriginal
Australian,
the
lowest
known
species
of
the
human
family,
was
just
a
step
higher
than
the
chimpanzee
in
brain
development…"
IPPF
London
1952
In
1952
the
British
Family
Planning
Association
(Marie
Stopes)
and
Planned
Parenthood-World
Population
of
America
(Margaret
Sanger)
and
six
other
national
birth-control
pressure
groups
formed
the
International
Planned
Parenthood
Federation
based
in
London.
Mrs.
Sanger
was
its
first
president.
Mrs
Vera
Houghton
and
IPPF
Mrs.
Houghton
was
the
first
Executive
Secretary
of
IPPF
in
which
capacity
she
worked
for
many
years
with
birth
control
and
abortion
campaigners
throughout
the
world.
Under
her
guidance
IPPF
had
expanded
from
being
a
tiny
organisation
with
one
employee
in
one
room
in
Eccleston
Square
in
London
into
a
huge
multinational.
Its
present
income
is
$107,000,000
It
now
consists
of
more
than
149
Member
Associations
and
works
in
more
than
189
countries
All
of
this
from
one
room
in
London.
Mrs.
Vera
Houghton
and
the
successful
reform
of
the
British
Abortion
Law
In
1963
Vera
Houghton
became
President
of
the
British
Abortion
Law
Reform
Association.
Up
until
this
point
the
Abortion
Law
Reform
Association
had
little
money
and
little
success.
Under
Mrs.
Houghton's
internationally
well
connected
leadership
money
poured
in,
in
good
part
from
the
USA.
More
than
half
this
came
from
the
Hopkin's
Donation
Fund
in
Santa
Barbara
California.
Without
this
finance,
particularly
that
part
of
it
which
was
spent
on
a
specialist
opinion
poll
amongst
Catholics
which
claimed
to
show
their
weak
opposition
to
abortion,
it
is
probable
that
the
birth
control
lobby
would
not
have
been
successful
in
introducing
the
British
Abortion
Act
in
1967.
The
attack
on
Life
from
London
-
on
Britain
The
Attack
on
Britain
viz.
1967
the
British
Abortion
Law
(modified
later
by
the
Human
Fertilisation
and
Embryology
Act
1990.)
550
babies
are
killed
each
day,
roughly
one
very
large
primary
school.
200,000
per
year
(population
60
millions)
7
million
legal
abortions
have
been
performed
in
Britain
since
1968.
One
baby
in
four.
The
upper
age
limit
is
24
weeks
but
up
to
birth
if
there
is
"serious
"
risk
to
mother
or
child
including
partial
birth
abortion.
In
Britain
about
90%
of
abortions
are
performed
in
the
first
third
of
pregnancy
-
two
thirds
to
single
mothers.
"There
is
no
such
danger
of
injury
[to
the
physical
or
mental
health
of
the
pregnant
woman]
in
the
vast
majority
of
cases
[of
women
seeking
abortion],
as
the
'indication'
is
purely
a
social
one."
(Report
on
Unplanned
pregnancy.
London,
England:
RCOG;
1972)
The
attack
on
Life
from
London
-
on
the
countries
of
the
Common
Law
Jurisdiction
Geopolitically
the
tactical
value
of
the
British
Abortion
Law
was
that
it
provided
a
legal
model
for
export
to
the
quarter
of
the
world
which
had
previously
made
up
the
British
Empire,
countries
which
used
English
Common
Law
and
mostly
developing
countries.
It
was
the
British
Abortion
Law
that
was
to
be
used
as
the
basic
model
of
"advanced
legal
reform
"
for
countries
of
Common
Law
Jurisdiction.
As
the
official
history
of
the
reform
of
the
Abortion
Law
states
"
India
and
Singapore,
faced
with
overwhelming
population
problems,
also
followed
Britain's
example
and
set
in
train
the
reform
of
their
own
Abortion
laws".
(Abortion
Law
Reformed
p.227).
The
South
Africa
Abortion
Act
1969
The
Medical
Termination
of
Pregnancy
Act
India
1971
The
wording
of
the
necessary
doctors'
certificate
is
strikingly
similar
to
that
of
the
British
Abortion
Law
with
the
addition
of
contraceptive
failure
introduced
as
a
legal
justification.)
Zambia-
Termination
of
Pregnancy
Act
1972
Singapore
Abortion
Acts
1974/77.
Here
in
addition
to
the
Indian
modification
parents
of
underage
girls,
spouses
or
biological
father
are
precluded
from
preventing
the
abortion.
New
Zealand
-The
Contraception,
Sterilisation
and
Abortion
Act
1977
The
attack
on
Life
from
London
-
on
all
countries
of
the
world
In
1976
the
Management
and
Planning
Committee
of
IPPF
delegated
more
authority
to
its
regional
directors
and
offered
them
participation
in
its
work
at
an
international
level
in
return
for
close
accountability
.
The
relevant
declaration
proposed,
"amongst
other
things
that
local
FPAs
needed
to
undertake
controversial
action
(our
emphasis)
to
explore
and
promote
law
and
policy
reform
which
would
enhance
the
prospects
for
the
of
the
programme
"
At
the
same
meeting
this
Management
and
Planning
Committee
accepted
a
report
from
its
Law
and
Planned
Parenthood
Panel
on
how
to
promote
changes
in
the
law
on
the
status
of
women
in
the
countries
where
IPPF
operated.
According
to
IPPF
NEWS
May/June
1976
the
process
was
as
follows
:
1.
Aspects
of
law
considered
discriminatory
to
women
were
to
be
identified
and
legal
sources
and
arguments
were
to
be
provided
on
which
to
base
their
reforms.
2.
Legal
interpretations
of
laws
affecting
women
were
to
be
examined
and
monitored.
3.
Women
were
to
be
provided
with
information
about
their
rights
under
the
law.
The
structure
of
the
Law
and
Planned
Parenthood
Panel
is
of
great
importance
viz.
a
Central
Law
Panel,
two
Hemispheric
Law
Panels,
Several
Regional
Law
Panels
and
ultimately
National
Law
Panels.
All
in
all
it
has
proved
to
be
a
closely
integrated,
formidable
and
successful
machine
for
legal
engineering
on
a
world
scale.
The
Human
Fertilisation
and
Embryology
Bill
2008
is
the
latest
development
in
the
attack
on
life
in
Britain
There
were
seven
important
components
of
this
bill
and
its
amendments
six
of
which
depend
on
the
separation
of
the
procreative
from
the
unitive
elements
of
sexual
intercourse
and
all
of
which
directly
or
indirectly
involve
killing.
1.
Inter-species
embryos
:
part
human
and
part
animal
e.g.
hybrid
embryos,
chimeras,
transgenic
human
embryos
and
true
hybrids.
The
manufacture
of
these
embryos
blurs
the
reality
of
what
it
is
to
be
a
human
being,
and
is
a
new
crime
against
humanity.
2.
Saviour
siblings
Here
the
child
is
used
as
a
resource
and
there
is
the
concomitant
destruction
of
unsuitable
embryos.
3.
Clones
The
Embryology
Authority
will
be
clearly
empowered
to
licence
the
creation
of
cloned
embryos
for
research.
The
bill
also
alters
the
way
the
law
is
framed
to
make
it
easier
for
parliament
to
permit
cloned
embryos
to
be
transferred
to
the
womb
in
the
future.
4.
In
vitro
fertilisation.
The
welfare
of
the
child
which
includes
the
need
for
a
father
is
no
longer
to
be
the
paramount
concern
hence
the
removal
of
the
requirement
to
consider
a
child's
need
for
a
father
.
It
is
no
longer
to
be
important
to
have
a
mother
and
a
father
so
both
can
be
female
or
in
the
case
of
surrogacy
both
male.
The
same
sex
partner
of
the
person
receiving
treatment
can
be
conferred
with
legal
parenthood
when
they
are
'treated
together'.
Having
two
fathers
or
two
mothers
strikes
at
the
reality
of
the
family
and
is
therefore
also
a
new
crime
against
humanity.
5.
Parenthood
is
to
be
a
legal
responsibility
and
a
matter
of
human
reproductive
rights
rather
than
a
biological
relationship.
As
so
often
now
happens
there
is
a
new
slogan
of
intimidation
viz.
'reproductive
autonomy'.
6.
Research.
Embryos
can
be
used
and
abused
in
any
way
that
researchers
consider
to
be
in
the
interests
of
science.
The
Bill
is
undemocratic
as
it
is
open
to
interpretation.
In
order
to
devolve
regulation
further
it
gives
the
regulating
bodies
greater
scope
for
granting
licences
for
treatments
not
currently
foreseen
without
the
need
for
recourse
to
a
democratically
elected
Parliament.
(cf.
pushing
the
limits
of
the
law
interpretations,
above).
7.
Abortion.
Many
amendments
have
been
promoted
in
order
to
extend
abortion
yet
further
.These
include
an
amendment
to
include
abortion
into
the
North
of
Ireland
and
thereby
into
the
Republic
of
Ireland.
There
is
also
a
sinister
attempt
to
muzzle
our
pro
life
movements.
At
its
second
reading
the
above
bill
was
supported
by
340
votes
to
78,
a
majority
of
262.(See
postscript
at
the
end
of
this
article
for
the
surprising
outcome
of
the
final
vote.)
The
third
stage
of
the
attack
on
Life
viz.
the
attack
on
the
parent,
the
primary
protector
and
educator
The
third
essential
factor
for
the
protection
of
life
is
the
inalienable
right
of
parents
to
be
the
protectors
and
primary
educators
of
their
own
children.
In
1974
a
Memorandum
of
Guidance
from
the
government
which
said
that
parents
of
children
of
whatever
age
(emphasis
added)
should
not
be
informed
by
their
doctor
of
a
child's
request
for
abortion
or
contraception.
This
was
simply
the
first
British
manifestation
of
the
world
population
movement's
campaign
to
remove
the
obstacle
of
parental
protection
to
their
policy.
In
other
words
to
replace
parents
by
a
Parental
State
manipulated
by
the
Birth
Control
Lobby.
A
campaign
ensued
in
which
I
was
involved.
It
was
led
by
a
heroic
and
very
intelligent
Catholic
lady
with
ten
children,
Mrs
Victoria
Gillick.
This
campaign
culminated
in
the
most
important
socio-legal
case
of
the
80s.
It
should
be
noted
that
whilst
many
individual
priests
gave
us
support
the
dominant
section
of
the
English
Catholic
Church
both
clerical
and
lay
did
not
support
us
but
rather,
by
their
silence
were
in
effect
against
us.
he
case
was
lost
in
a
lower
court,
won
by
unanimous
vote
in
the
Court
of
Appeal
and
finally
lost
in
the
House
of
Lords
by
a
majority
of
three
votes
to
two.
The
loss
was
not
however
complete
as
it
did
not
totally
forbid
doctors
to
tell
parents
when
their
child
requested
contraception
or
abortion.
In
the
10
months
after
the
second
hearing
in
the
Court
of
Appeal
doctors
were
totally
forbidden
by
law
to
give
contraception
or
abortion
to
girls
under
16
without
parental
knowledge
with
the
result
that
contraceptive
usage,
the
illegitimacy
figures
and
abortion
rates
fell
in
this
age
group
of
girls.
Thus
the
removal
of
parental
protection
and
the
availability
of
contraception
were
major
causes
of
under
age
illegitimacy
and
abortion.
Confronted
by
this
soft
terrorism
of
the
Government
and
the
birth
control
lobby
our
Bishops
had
forgotten
the
words
of
Pope
Pius
XI
en
1937
concerning
the
rights
of
parents
as
educators.
In
his
Encyclical
Mit
Brennender
Sorge
to
the
parents
of
your
country
who
were
confronted
with
the
hard
terrorism
of
the
NAZIS
(real
terrorism).
The
Holy
Father
told
Catholic
parents
that
no
attack
or
subversion
of
this
right
could
free
them
from
answering
before
God
for
the
spiritual
well
being
of
their
child
and
that
in
a
country
ruled
by
the
Gestapo!
It
was
tragic
for
our
children
and
our
country
that
we
lost
our
case
when
it
was
again
appealed
to
the
House
of
Lords.
This
legal
judgement
is
now
much
misused
in
our
country.
It
also
applies
in
other
parts
of
Common-law
Jurisdiction
which
covers
one
quarter
of
humanity
many
millions
of
whom
are
Catholics.
The
result
of
this
defeat
has
been
the
development
of
the
Advanced
Parental
State
in
the
United
Kingdom.
These
are
some
of
the
consequences
:
1.
Contraception,
abortion,
sexual
instruction
classes,
homosexual
instruction/
promotion
classes,
medication
and
immunisation
without
parental
knowledge
and
had
they
been
informed
it
would
have
been
often
against
their
wishes.
2.
We
have
a
document
agreed
between
the
State
and
the
Catholic
Bishops
which
"welcomes",
"implements"
and
"voluntarily
monitors"
the
equal
employment
rights
of
male
and
female
homosexuals,
bisexuals
and
transgender,
inter
alia
*
in
our
Catholic
schools.
This
"concordat
"
is
signed
by
Archbishop
Peter
Smith
who
is
considered
to
be
a
strong
candidate
for
Westminster.
It
is
published
by
the
Catholic
Bishops'
Conference
of
England
and
Wales
.
The
document
which
was
paid
for
by
the
British
Government
is
largely
not
known
by
Catholic
parents.
(See
Diversity
and
Equality
Guidelines
Catholic
Bishops'
Conference
of
England
and
Wales
2005
www.catholicchurch.org.uk/equality.)
3.We
have,
with
the
agreement
of
the
Catholic
Education
Service
(C.E.S),
the
presence
of
nurses
and
other
personnel
in
some
Catholic
schools.
The
C.E.S
is
presided
over
by
Archbishop
Vincent
Nichols
who
is
considered
a
very
strong
candidate
to
succeed
Cardinal
Murphy
O’Connor
at
Westminster.
These
nurses
and
other
personnel
have
been
rigorously
trained
in
the
law
as
it
effects
under
age
sex,
contraception
and
abortion.
Moreover
they
are
very
aware
of
the
Government’s
Teenage
Pregnancy
Policy.
A
set
of
“safeguards”
of
the
Catholic
ethos
are
said
to
have
been
negotiated
with
the
State.
Unsurprisingly
there
are
now
reports
of
these
so
called
safeguards
breaking
down.
I
fear
that
it
is
only
a
matter
of
time
until
some
Catholic
parents
who
have
innocently
entrusted
their
children
to
the
Catholic
system
have
their
grandchild
killed
by
abortion
without
their
knowledge.
One
Bishop,
Bishop
Patrick
O'Donoghue
of
Lancaster
has
seen
the
danger
of
such
Episcopal
collaboration
with
our
Parental
State.
He
has
written
“I
encourage
all
our
schools
and
parishes
to
continue
to
take
steps
to
protect
our
young
people
from
the
culture
of
death,
that
seeks
to
corrupt
and
exploit
them."
We
shall
watch
developments
in
Lancaster
with
interest.
?
In
the
English
Episcopate
this
brave
Bishop
is
very
largely
on
his
own
please
pray
for
him.
4
We
have
the
State
forcing
Catholic
adoption
agencies
to
conform
with
the
law
and
make
Catholic
children
in
their
care
available
for
adoption
by
homosexuals,
lesbians,
transgenders
etc.
As
a
result
we
have
the
imminent
closure
of
all
Catholic
Adoption
Agencies,often
with
little
legal
or
moral
resistance
from
most
of
our
Bishops.
The
question
must
be
asked
do
these
Bishops
of
Jesus
Christ,
even
under
the
threat
of
an
evil
law
have
the
moral
right
to
abandon
250
of
the
most
vulnerable
Catholic
children
who
are
in
their
care
and
safekeeping?
The
removal
by
the
State
from
parents
of
their
God
given
right
and
duty
to
be
the
primary
educators
of
their
families
has
come
about
because
of
the
rejection
of
Humane
Vitae
by
the
majority
of
our
clergy
and
lay
people.
In
particular
the
clear
warning
the
Vicar
of
Christ
gave
us
in
Humanae
Vitae
N
17:
Wer
könnte
es
Staatsregierungen
verwehren,
zur
Überwindung
der
Schwierigkeiten
ihrer
Nationen
für
sich
in
Anspruch
zu
nehmen,
was
man
Ehegatten
als
erlaubte
Lösung
ihrer
Familienprobleme
zugesteht?
Who
will
blame
a
government
which
in
its
attempt
to
resolve
the
problems
affecting
an
entire
country
resorts
to
the
same
measures
as
are
regarded
as
lawful
by
married
people
in
the
solution
of
a
particular
family
difficulty?
Fürchte
dich
nicht
"
Be
not
afraid"
With
these
words
began
the
Pontificate
of
Pope
John
Paul
the
Great,
a
joyful
explosion
of
grace
and
hope
for
our
families
and
for
life.
Throughout
his
long
pontificate
which
was
totally
dedicated
to
Our
Blessed
Lady,
Totus
Tuus,
Maria
he
unrolled
a
vast
pastoral
plan
to
promote
the
well
being
of
our
families
at
all
levels.
His
first
synod
of
bishops
was
on
the
subject
of
the
family.
This
subsequently
bore
fruit
with
the
publication
of
Familaris
Consortio
and
the
Charter
of
the
Rights
of
the
Family.
Taken
together
they
are
the
Magna
Carta
for
our
families.
The
Holy
Father
insisted
that
a
civilisation
of
love
is
based
upon
families
and
that
the
family
is
a
unique
subject
which
must
be
recognised
by
the
State.
In
his
Encyclicals
and
his
personal
meetings
with
families
and
youth
he
protected
our
sick,
our
dying,
our
sisters,
our
mothers
and
our
children.
At
the
geopolitical
level
under
the
courageous
and
faithful
presidency
of
Cardinal
Alfonso
Lopez
Trujillo
(R.I.P)
the
Pontifical
Council
for
the
Family
successfully
met
the
challenge
at
Cairo
of
IPPF
and
the
other
multinationals
which
make
up
the
Goliath
which
threatens
our
families.
All
of
this
work
continues
under
our
beloved
Pope
Benedict
XI
who
has
encourages
the
Bishops
to
do
everything
in
their
power
to
protect
the
rights
of
parents.
Our
Holy
Father
insists
that
the
family
should
be
protected
as
something
sacred.
He
defends
the
definition
of
the
family
denouncing
the
fact
that
the
word
"family"
is
now
being
used
for
unions
which
are
not
at
all
families.
All
of
the
many
worrying
things
I
have
discussed
are
historical
reality
but
there
is
a
greater
reality
so
well
expressed
in
the
words
of
Pope
John
Paul
the
Great.
Fürchte
dich
nicht.
Die
Kraft
des
Kreuzes
Christi
und
Seiner
Auferstehung
ist
groesser
als
jedes
Uebel,
welches
einem
Menschen
zustossen
kann
oder
welches
er
fuerchten
koennte.
Be
not
afraid.
The
power
of
the
cross
of
Christ
and
the
Resurrection
is
greater
that
any
evil
which
a
man
can
or
ought
to
fear.
Thank
you.
A
postscript
(added
subsequently
to
the
date
of
the
Munich
lecture)
The
Cross
the
reason
for
our
hope
The
Human
Fertilisation
and
Embryology
Bill
passed
its
Third
and
Final
Reading
in
the
House
of
Commons
on
22nd
October
and
will
now
almost
inevitably
become
law
after
MPs
approved
it
by
355
votes
to
129.This
means
animal-human
hybrids,
'saviour
siblings'
(designer
babies)
and
fatherless
IVF
children
will
soon
be
with
us.
The
amendments
regarding
abortion
were
not
allowed
adequate
time
and
providentially
will
not
become
law.
Addendum
Supreme
Court
Justice
Ginsburg:
'I
Thought
Roe
Would
Help
Eradicate
Unwanted
Populations
Through
Abortion'
By
Kathleen
Gilbert
WASHINGTON,
D.C.,
July
9,
2009
(LifeSiteNews.com)
-
U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justice
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
seems
to
have
made
a
stunning
admission
in
favor
of
cleansing
America
of
unwanted
populations
by
aborting
them.
In
an
interview
with
the
New
York
Times,
the
judge
said
that
Medicaid
should
cover
abortions,
and
that
she
had
originally
expected
that
Roe
v.
Wade
would
facilitate
such
coverage
in
order
to
control
the
population
of
groups
"that
we
don't
want
to
have
too
many
of."
The
statement
was
made
in
the
context
of
a
discussion
about
the
fact
that
abortions
are
not
covered
by
Medicaid,
and
therefore
are
less
available
to
poor
women.
"Reproductive
choice
has
to
be
straightened
out,"
said
Ginsburg,
lamenting
the
fact
that
only
women
"of
means"
can
easily
access
abortion.
"Frankly
I
had
thought
that
at
the
time
Roe
was
decided,
there
was
concern
about
population
growth
and
particularly
growth
in
populations
that
we
don't
want
to
have
too
many
of,"
Ginsburg
told
Emily
Bazelon
of
the
New
York
Times.
"So
that
Roe
was
going
to
be
then
set
up
for
Medicaid
funding
for
abortion.
Which
some
people
felt
would
risk
coercing
women
into
having
abortions
when
they
didn't
really
want
them.
But
when
the
court
decided
McRae,
the
case
came
out
the
other
way.
And
then
I
realized
that
my
perception
of
it
had
been
altogether
wrong."
Harris
v.
McRae
is
a
1980
court
decision
that
upheld
the
Hyde
Amendment,
which
forbids
the
use
of
Medicaid
for
abortions.
Justice
Ginsburg's
remarks
appear
to
align
her
expectations
for
abortion
with
those
of
Planned
Parenthood
founder
Margaret
Sanger,
and
other
prominent
members
of
the
20th
century's
eugenics
movement.
Sanger
and
her
eugenicist
peers
advocated
the
systematic
use
of
contraception,
sterilization,
and
abortion
to
reduce
the
numbers
of
poor,
black,
immigrant
and
disabled
populations.
Ironically,
the
New
York
Times
interview
began
as
an
exploration
of
Ginsburg's
thoughts
on
Supreme
Court
hopeful
Sonia
Sotomayor
as
she
prepares
for
her
confirmation
hearings
this
month.
Coverage
of
Sotomayor
frequently
emphasizes
her
success
story
as
an
underprivileged
minority
from
the
Bronx
who
rose
to
prominence
at
Princeton
and
Yale
Law.
Ginsburg
also
defended
a
controversial
statement
repeated
by
Sotomayor
in
several
speeches,
where
she
stated
she
"would
hope
that
a
wise
Latina
woman
with
the
richness
of
her
experiences
would
more
often
than
not
reach
a
better
conclusion
than
a
white
male
who
hasn't
lived
that
life."
"I
thought
it
was
ridiculous
for
them
to
make
a
big
deal
out
of
that,"
said
Ginsburg.
"Think
of
how
many
times
you've
said
something
that
you
didn't
get
out
quite
right,
and
you
would
edit
your
statement
if
you
could.
I'm
sure
she
meant
no
more
than
what
I
mean
when
I
say:
Yes,
women
bring
a
different
life
experience
to
the
table.
...
That
I'm
a
woman,
that's
part
of
it,
that
I'm
Jewish,
that's
part
of
it,
that
I
grew
up
in
Brooklyn,
N.Y.,
and
I
went
to
summer
camp
in
the
Adirondacks,
all
these
things
are
part
of
me."
The
judge
also
praised
the
advent
of
earlier
abortions
with
the
wider
distribution
of
the
morning-after
pill,
saying
"I
think
the
side
that
wants
to
take
the
choice
away
from
women
and
give
it
to
the
state,
they're
fighting
a
losing
battle.
Time
is
on
the
side
of
change."
When
the
Supreme
Court
upheld
the
partial-birth
abortion
ban
in
2007,
Ginsburg
wrote
a
scathing
dissent,
saying
the
court's
reasoning
"reflects
ancient
notions
about
women's
place
in
the
family
and
under
the
Constitution
-
ideas
that
have
long
since
been
discredited."
Top
www.catholic-family.org
Where
does
it
say
in
Church
documents
that
Parents
are
the
prime
educators
of
their
children?
Parents
alone
have
the
right
to
be
the
primary
educators
of
their
children,
especially
with
regards
to
sexuality.
This
right
is
given
to
them
by
God,
who
gives
parents
the
task
to
teach
Christian
morality
to
their
children.
Parents
are
the
best
teachers
of
their
children.
Parents
should
be
the
guardians
and
caretakers
of
each
child
which
is
bestowed
upon
them.
The
following
are
extracts
from
Church
documents
showing
this
essential
teaching:
Gravissimum
Educationis
-
declaration
on
Christian
education,
Paul
VI,
1965,
n.3.
Since
parents
have
given
children
their
life,
they
are
bound
by
the
most
serious
obligation
to
educate
their
offspring
and
therefore
must
be
recognized
as
the
primary
and
principal
educators.
This
role
in
education
is
so
important
that
only
with
difficulty
can
it
be
supplied
where
it
is
lacking.
Parents
are
the
ones
who
must
create
a
family
atmosphere
animated
by
love
and
respect
for
God
and
man,
in
which
the
well-rounded
personal
and
social
education
of
children
is
fostered.
Catechism
of
the
Catholic
Church
2223
Parents
have
the
first
responsibility
for
the
education
of
their
children.
They
bear
witness
to
this
responsibility
first
by
creating
a
home
where
tenderness,
forgiveness,
respect,
fidelity,
and
disinterested
service
are
the
rule.
The
home
is
well
suited
for
education
in
the
virtues.
This
requires
an
apprenticeship
in
self-denial,
sound
judgment,
and
self-mastery
-
the
preconditions
of
all
true
freedom.
Parents
should
teach
their
children
to
subordinate
the
"material
and
instinctual
dimensions
to
interior
and
spiritual
ones."31
Parents
have
a
grave
responsibility
to
give
good
example
to
their
children.
By
knowing
how
to
acknowledge
their
own
failings
to
their
children,
parents
will
be
better
able
to
guide
and
correct
them.
Gaudium
et
Spes,
n.49
It
is
imperative
to
give
suitable
and
timely
instruction
to
young
people,
above
all
in
the
heart
of
their
own
families,
about
the
dignity
of
married
love,
its
role
and
its
exercise,
so
that,
having
learned
the
value
of
chastity,
they
will
be
able
at
a
suitable
age
to
engage
in
honorable
courtship
and
enter
upon
a
marriage
of
their
own.
Familiaris
Consortio
n.36
The
right
and
duty
of
parents
to
give
education
is
essential,
since
it
is
connected
with
the
transmission
of
human
life;
it
is
original
and
primary
with
regard
to
the
educational
role
of
others,
on
account
of
the
uniqueness
of
the
loving
relationship
between
parents
and
children;
and
it
is
irreplaceable
and
inalienable,
and
therefore
incapable
of
being
entirely
delegated
to
others
or
usurped
by
others.
In
addition
to
these
characteristics,
it
cannot
be
forgotten
that
the
most
basic
element,
so
basic
that
it
qualifies
the
educational
role
of
parents,
is
parental
love,
which
finds
fulfillment
in
the
task
of
education
as
it
completes
and
perfects
its
service
of
life:
as
well
as
being
a
source,
the
parents'
love
is
also
the
animating
principle
and
therefore
the
norm
inspiring
and
guiding
all
concrete
educational
activity,
enriching
it
with
the
values
of
kindness,
constancy,
goodness,
service,
disinterestedness
and
self-sacrifice
that
are
the
most
precious
fruit
of
love.
Message
for
38th
World
Communications
day,
Benedict
XVI.
5.
Parents,
as
the
primary
and
most
important
educators
of
their
children,
are
also
the
first
to
teach
them
about
the
media.
They
are
called
to
train
their
offspring
in
the
“moderate,
critical,
watchful
and
prudent
use
of
the
media”
in
the
home
(Familiaris
Consortio,
76).
When
parents
do
that
consistently
and
well,
family
life
is
greatly
enriched.
Charter
of
the
Rights
of
the
family,
1983,
Article
5
Since
they
have
conferred
life
on
their
children,
parents
have
the
original,
primary
and
inalienable
right
to
educate
them;
hence
they
must
be
acknowledged
as
the
first
and
foremost
educators
of
their
children.
a)
Parents
have
the
right
to
educate
their
children
in
conformity
with
their
moral
and
religious
convictions,
taking
into
account
the
cultural
traditions
of
the
family
which
favor
the
good
and
the
dignity
of
the
child;
they
should
also
receive
from
society
the
necessary
aid
and
assistance
to
perform
their
educational
role
properly.
b)
Parents
have
the
right
to
freely
choose
schools
or
other
means
necessary
to
educate
their
children
in
keeping
with
their
convictions.
Public
authorities
must
ensure
that
public
subsidies
are
so
allocated
that
parents
are
truly
free
to
exercise
this
right
without
incurring
unjust
burdens.
Parents
should
not
have
to
sustain,
directly
or
indirectly,
extra
charges
which
would
deny
or
unjustly
limit
the
exercise
of
this
freedom.
c)
Parents
have
the
right
to
ensure
that
their
children
are
not
compelled
to
attend
classes
which
are
not
in
agreement
with
their
own
moral
and
religious
convictions.
In
particular,
sex
education
is
a
basic
right
of
the
parents
and
must
always
be
carried
out
under
their
close
supervision,
whether
at
home
or
in
educational
centers
chosen
and
controlled
by
them.
d)
The
rights
of
parents
are
violated
when
a
compulsory
system
of
education
is
imposed
by
the
State
from
which
all
religious
formation
is
excluded.
e)
The
primary
right
of
parents
to
educate
their
children
must
be
upheld
in
all
forms
of
collaboration
between
parents,
teachers
and
school
authorities,
and
particularly
in
forms
of
participation
designed
to
give
citizens
a
voice
in
the
functioning
of
schools
and
in
the
formulation
and
implementation
of
educational
policies.
f)
The
family
has
the
right
to
expect
that
the
means
of
social
communication
will
be
positive
instruments
for
the
building
up
of
society,
and
will
reinforce
the
fundamental
values
of
the
family.
At
the
same
time
the
family
has
the
right
to
be
adequately
protected,
especially
with
regard
to
its
youngest
members,
from
the
negative
effects
and
misuse
of
the
mass
media.
The
truth
and
Meaning
of
Human
Sexuality,
Pontifical
Council
for
the
Family,
n.5.
The
Church
has
always
affirmed
that
parents
have
the
duty
and
the
right
to
be
the
first
and
the
principal
educators
of
their
children.
Letter
to
Families,
1995,
John
Paul
II.
"Parents
are
the
first
and
most
important
educators
of
their
own
children,
and
they
also
possess
a
fundamental
competence
in
this
area:
they
are
educators
because
they
are
parents."
Sir
30:1-2
He
who
loves
his
son
will
not
spare
the
rod.
.
.
.
He
who
disciplines
his
son
will
profit
by
him.
Eph
6:4
Fathers,
do
not
provoke
your
children
to
anger,
but
bring
them
up
in
the
discipline
and
instruction
of
the
Lord.
Psalm
78:5
“He
[the
Lord]
set
it
up
as
a
decree
in
Jacob,
and
established
it
as
a
law
in
Israel,
That
what
He
commanded
our
fathers
they
should
make
known
to
their
sons”
[
http://loveundefiled.blogspot.com/2009/06/where-does-it-say-in-church-documents_09.html
]
