Home


Hands   

PARENTS, THE PRIMARY EDUCATORS AND PROTECTORS . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

www.catholic-family.org

 

Ball. Stannard, Nicholls

 

ED BALLS, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES, OONA STANNARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CATHOLIC EDUCATION SERVICE, ARCHBISHOP VINCENT NICHOLS, CHAIRMAN, BISHOPS' DEPARTMENT FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION & FORMATION

 

 

An Open Letter

 

Ms.Oona Stannard
Chief Executive
The Catholic Education Service
39 Eccleston Square
London SW1V IBX
general@cesew.org.uk

09.01.09

 


Last week's Government statistics and BBC Panorama programme, Kids behaving Badly (5th January 2009) (#1) demonstrated the crisis of premature sexualisation of little children in our schools.

In your capacity as Chief Executive of the Catholic Education Service (CES) you have given an interview in which you are reported to have said that the CES has welcomed Government plans to make Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) compulsory in all primary and secondary schools. ** This policy, we know, will corrupt innocent children and at the beginning of this new school term we publicly express our opposition to it based on the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.

The NACF: We as Catholic parents who accept Catholic teaching on the natural inalienable rights and duties of parents, categorically reject, without reservation, your current position and that of your Board. With respect, neither you nor it has any credible standing on this matter. Parents do so as primary educators of their own children.

The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. 'The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.' ' The right and the duty of parents to educate their children is primordial and inalienable.'(our emphasis) The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2221


You speak about how you think compulsory sex education would work in Catholic primary schools and are reported to have said: 'You would expect that young children would need to learn about body parts, that simple sort of biology'.

The NACF: The CES arrogantly and undemocratically attempts to usurp our rights and challenge our moral authority as primary educators and protectors of our children.

[S]ince parents have conferred life on their children, they have a most solemn obligation to educate their offspring. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it.' (our emphasis) The Documents of the Second Vatican Council

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.' (our emphasis) Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II N 36. Familiaris Consortio


In your statement of 23 October 2008 you say that there is much in the Government commissioned review of SRE which the CES can support and that important reassurances are contained in the Government response.

The NACF: As the CES already works with Connexions in Catholic schools and it allows the operation of nurse clinics in some schools we fully believe that the CES broadly supports Government policy. We reject the so-called, 'important reassurances' because on the basis of the following quotation we would be disingenuous to do otherwise.

'But Miss Stannard also said that it was unlikely that compulsory SRE would withhold 'the facts about contraception,(our emphasis) because if you withhold facts you leave young people more open to exploitation by others who will not necessarily have their best interests at heart'. (Catholic Herald 31/10/2008) (#2)

You said: 'Indeed we would all abhor early sexualisation.' (our emphasis) (cf 'to learn about body parts' . . . 'amongst their friends and peers' . . . ' 'the facts about contraception, because if you withhold facts you leave young people more open to exploitation by others who will not necessarily have their best interests at heart'.)

The NACF: On this one point we agree and it is for this reason that we are utterly opposed to your policy which will prematurely sexualize our children. It is the parents who love their children, have their hearts broken when their children are corrupted and it is they who have to try to pick up the pieces. At the same time it is the parents who are held responsible for the consequences of the damaging actions of others in the pay of the Parental State. We emphatically request that the governing body of the CES now unambiguously follows the teaching of the Catholic Church world- wide and thus reject its own local hybridization with this State's ill concealed and discredited birth control policies. We for our part trust the guidance to our families given under the authority of Pope John Paul II:

Nonetheless, in the context of moral and sexual information, various problems can arise in this stage of childhood. In some societies today, there are planned and determined attempts to impose premature sex information on children . . . Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life. Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children's innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence.' (our emphasis) The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality 83.


You said 'The statutory rights of parents to withdraw their children from sex education remain but it is our hope that parents will not find the need to exercise this right as children are likely to benefit from experiencing SRE amongst their friends and peers'. '

The NACF'S response is to strongly recommend that parents send this letter to schools.


The Head teacher,

 

Dear ,

We wish to inform you that we formally withdraw our daughter/son.......from all of the sex and relationship classes with immediate effect. We also wish to be given details of content and adequate notice prior to any similar material being dealt with in other parts of the curriculum in any other lesson. We are taking this action as we feel strongly that sex education and the morals and values implicit in this remain within the inalienable moral responsibility of us, as parents, as the primary and natural educators and protectors of our children. Yours etc.

 

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

 

Thomas Ward, President of the National Association of Catholic Families

Tim Matthews Editor CF News, National Association of Catholic Families

Jane and Orlando Villalobos, Birmingham

Maria and Bob Haynes, Chester

Christine and Nigel Hudson, Plymouth

Mary Middlewick, Truro

Valeria Findlay-Wilson, Dorset

Clare and Martin O'Toole, Devon

James and Teresa Shingler, Staffordshire

David & Shauna Katrcyz, Oldham

Jane Deegan

Matthew and Alexandra Mc Cowen, Manchester

 


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 


#1    www.bbc.co.uk/go/homepage/d/int/tv/bbcone/5/-/programmes/b00gkl8z

#2  Catholic Herald. Bishops' agency backs sex education for Catholic primary school children. By Anna Arco 31 October 20

 

Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

T H E   F R A N K F U R T   S C H O O L

The Quiet Revolution rolls forward


WESTERN CIVILISATION at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests. . . .Civilisation is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory.

Christopher Dawson. Enquiries into Religion and Culture, p259.


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

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'.

 

Lukacs  Munzenberg

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  Grunberg   Adorno  

FELIX WEIL, CARL GRUNBERG, , THEODOR ADORNO

Fromm Habermas

ERIC FROMM, JURGEN HABERMAS WITH SOME OF HIS STUDENTS

 

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).

 

MASLOW

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'

 

Broken window

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 Ward

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

MalthusA 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

DarwinDarwin 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

 

  Procession      Pro-lifers    Pro-lifers

ARCHBISHOP KURTZ JOINS IN THE PEACEFUL PRAYER PROCESSION, ACCOMPANIED BY NEO-NAZI & HOMOSEXUALIST CROWD

Police      Police presence     Marchers

POLICE KEEP EYE ON COLOURFULLY-DRESSED ANTI-LIFE & HOMOSEXUALIST DEMONTRATORS

Police surveillance      Police survellance     Munich pro-lifers

MUNICH POLICE VIDEO THE VOCIFEROUS ANTI-LIFE AND NEO-NAZIS DEMONSTRATORS

Archb. Kurtz    MEMORIAL ROSES

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 ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

This bulletin is published by the National Association of Catholic Families, UK Registered Charity No.298481. Our main website is at http://www.catholic-family.org   Please forward this bulletin to other interested parties. Emails to editor@catholic-family.org No appended files accepted, unless by prior arrangement.

 

Saint Francis de Sales, patron saint of journalists, pray for us

Saint Don Bosco, patron saint of editors, pray for us

 

 

***********************************************

 

GRANT US, Father a spirit of wisdom and insight, so that we may know the great hope to which we have been called.

Let peace and harmony reign among all the dwellers on the earth.

To those who exercise the ministry of authority in the service of their brothers, send a spirit of wisdom and humility.

May all those consecrated to you together devote themselves to constant prayer.

Grant us, O God, to fill up in our own flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for his Church.

To our families and benefactors grant the blessing of everlasting life.

Be ever mindful of your mercy, exalt the lowly; fill the hungry with good things.

Both in life and death, let us be yours, O Lord.

Free the world from its slavery to corruption, to share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

 

Top