Baby's hand
















Alpha logo


IN AN EMAIL of December 3, 2015, Raymond Cardinal Burke wrote 'It has come to my attention that a program called 'Alpha in a Catholic Context' has been recommended to some Marian Catechists. 'Having studied the program, both from the perspective of doctrine and methodology, I must make it clear that the program may not be used, in any form, in the Marian Catechist Apostolate and that Marian Catechists are not to become involved with it.

He continued: 'While, like so many similar programs, Alpha may seem to offer a more attractive and effective form of evangelization and catechesis, it does not have the doctrinal and methodological foundations required for the teaching of the Catholic Faith'.

The Cardinal recommended that, instead, catechists should be base their teaching on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the courses of Father John Hardon, S.J., and his own Commentary on the General Directory for Catechesis.

Alpha was started in 1977 by Charles Marnham, a curate at Brompton's Holy later developed by curates John Irvine and the Rev. Nicky Gumble, a non-Catholic who believes that all religions in general are the same and that within Christianity, not much really separates Catholicism from those who follow the Protestant heresy.

Alpha is big business built on copyrights, target figures, line charts and multi-million pound advertising campaigns, and because it is copyright 'Catholic Alpha' MUST use the basic Alpha course 'as it stands'. (Gumble was especially resistant to the idea of local adaptation: 'If I went to McDonalads in Moscow and was given a ham sandwich, I would say that's not on') But the program is so theologically deficient (Catholics are actually told that 'denominational distinctives' must left out of Alpha) that a Catholic Office's Post Alpha Catholic Teaching [PACT] appendix has had to be added to it.

This PACT appendix gives unequivocal support and praise of Alpha as a starting point but it does not clarify and correct any of Alpha's basic errors as regards the Church's teaching. These errors, absorbed after ten weeks of Alpha teaching of 15 video sessions, are therefore allowed to stand with the apparent blessing of the Church.

The Catholic Gazette called Alpha a 'pre-catechetical course', claiming that 'it looks at some of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith' [p. 5] - but this is just not true. Alpha is, rather, based on Gumble's Questions of Life, which by commission and omission, proposes (as Cardinal Burke says) an ecclesiology and a sacramental theology, contrary in essence to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Alpha teaches that Revelation is based on the Bible alone. But, as St John Paul II reminds us, Scripture is not the Church's sole point of reference. The 'supreme rule of her faith' derives from the unity which the spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others' [Faith and Reason 55].

Alpha's understanding of 'church' is reduced to 'simply a gathering of Christians who get together to worship God, to hear what God is saying to them, to encourage one another and to make friends. It should be a very exciting place to be!' [Why Jesus, N. Gumbel, p. 21]. Alpha's understanding of 'Universal Church' is of an amalgamation, a sum total, of all who believe in Christ that consists of all those worldwide who profess the name of Christ' [Questions of Life, N. Gumbel, p. 221].

The Catholic Church is referred to as one of many Christian denominations and Alpha implies that to link an understanding of the term 'Church' to any one particular denominational church is an image that should be buried [Questions of Life, p. 220] It is a view, according to Alpha, 'wholly inadequate when compared to the picture of the church in the New Testament' (ibid).

Gumbel drives this message home emphatically: 'No-one cares anymore what denominations we are, because we are one in Christ. Nobody cares tuppence. All that matters is that we know and love Christ, we are Christians'.

The Catholic Church, on the contrary, teaches the necessity of a unity of Faith.

Alpha's teaching on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharis is based on the lowest common denominator approach -- of what will be found acceptable by the majority of major Christian denominations and traditions. 'Teaching on the sacraments', says Gumble, 'is limited, in the sense that we only teach on Alpha what all the major denominations and traditions are agreed about (aware) 'that some denominations would want to add more' [pp. 17-8]. This results in no clear understanding being given of the nature of a Sacrament as being instituted by Christ and as communicating grace.

Alpha's key book, Gumble's Questions of Life, is recommended as course reading. It contains all these errors and many more written in a plausible and readable style. Unless error is corrected at the time when Alpha is used in a Catholic context, the error will stand and, inevitably, will be absorbed by some of those attending. That, says one member of faithful who went on an Alpha course, was certainly her experience. .

The errors, she said, were left to stand and the methodology laid down in the Team Training Manual for the leaders and helpers of the small groups ensured that they did. 'The method of discussion used was based on subjective criteria. Two basic questions - 'What do you think?' and 'What do you feel?'

Formatted and controlled, the way that the discussions went was such that it precluded any objective discussion. 'My experience was of received hostility to any form of clarification and defence of the Church's teaching in relation to the teaching proposed by Nicky Gumbel, a teaching that was not Catholic in essence. Such a clarification and defence was labelled 'negative'. This would seem to deny the principle of religious freedom upheld by the Church. It is of great concern that Alpha should introduce such methodology into any parish, let alone a Catholic parish'.

'Local Church' is understood by Alpha in three ways, in terms of 'celebration' - a large gathering of Christians, a 'congregation', a medium-sized gathering, and a 'cell' or small group, but not, as in Catholic teaching, as a segment of the Church under a Bishop's authority [Questions of Life, p. 222].

Alpha recognises only one priesthood, 'The priesthood of all believers' [ibid, p. 230]. The priest is understood merely as an 'elder', 'a leader in the church' but one who 'is not a sacrificing priest'. Thus, it follows, that the 'Eucharist' is understood solely as 'the Lord's Supper' when 'we remember his sacrifice with thanksgiving and partake of its benefits' but not as a holy sacrifice as in Catholic teaching. The explanation of this thinking is that 'now Jesus, our great high priest (hiereus), has made the supreme sacrifice of his own life on our behalf, no further sacrifices are necessary and no further priests are necessary' [p. 229]. This, of course, is contrary in essence to the Church's teaching.

With regards to the Sacrament of Baptism, Alpha understands it in terms of a Church membership ritual alone that does not confer but rather confirms something that has already taken place. Alpha believes that the Holy Spirit is received prior to Baptism when a person commits him or herself publicly to Christ and hands are laid on them, by committed Christians, lay or clerical, to invoke the coming down of the Holy Spirit.

There is a strong emphasis placed on healing (sixteen pages) and speaking in tongues.(eight pages). People are told to pray and ask for this gift of speaking in tongues according to a certain format. 'Open your mouth and start to praise God in any language but English or any other language known to you' and 'Believe that what you receive is from God. Don't let anyone tell you that you made it up' [ibid, p. 147]. The leaders on the Alpha weekends are asked to pray for people to receive the gift of tongues 'not because it is the most important gift but because the Alpha course is a beginner's course and the gift of tongues is (considered a) beginner's gift... Both in the Bible and in experience it is often the first obviously supernatural gift of the Spirit which people receive' [Telling Others, N. Gumbel, p. 129].

Our Lady is not part of Alpha and there is an implicit rejection of the Immaculate Conception..

In short, Alpha is not Catholic and those who in good faith come to a Catholic parish to gain a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith via a basic understanding of Christ will be sadly short-changed, albeit that they may receive a warm welcome and have an enjoyable evening and a good supper. One wonders whether participants are fully aware of the overall purpose underlying the Alpha method, and whether they would be so keen to participate if they did. The overall purpose of the small group discussion, according to the Team Training Manual is 'to bring people into a relationship with Jesus Christ' [p. 1] through friendship with Christians. This is considered 'the main reason why people stay in the church' [p. 6].

The Alpha format of supper, video and discussion is undoubtedly a good idea. Their videos are professional and the Rev. Nicky Gumbel comes across as being sincere in his beliefs and is a charismatic figure. The PACT videos contrast badly by comparison. They do little to get across what Catholic teaching is. It is unavoidable that the PACT material appears to be 'tacked on' to a Protestant message because the Alpha message (which offers a different understanding of key terms such as the Church, the local Church, the Universal Church, Tradition, the Sacraments, the Eucharist, the priesthood and omits the Mother of God) is left to stand, unqualified, in its integrity.

In the PACT video Why should I listen to the Church? there is a lack of clarification over the understanding of what is understood by the 'Church'. This leads to a watered-down understanding of the Catholic Church as a teaching church that has authority. Alpha makes it sounds like just another point of view, another opinion.

In the PACT video Why bother going to Mass?, there is a lack of clarification of the meaning of a Sacrament as communicating grace. There is one brief listing of the seven sacraments in name only, given in a somewhat offhand way as, in a jocular fashion, the priest speaker appears to momentarily forget some of the seven.

In spite of all this the Catholic Alpha Office claims that Alpha

• provides an effective tool for evangelisation

• feeds RCIA and other programmes

In reality the Alpha program appears to run quite contrary to the Church's teaching on the principles of Evangelisation and catechesis as set out in the encyclical Faith and Reason.; Alpha's teachings are to a great degree contrary in essence to the teachings of the Church in fundamental respects; Alpha's methodology silences the truths of the Catholic Church.

As a Catholic one is thus forced to ask questions:

• How is it that there are those in the Church who choose to use Alpha in the name of the Church in a Catholic parish?

• How is it that material containing such error can be used with equanimity by those concerned?

•Is it not a serious matter that the faithful's understanding of the Faith will be endangered and confused and those seeking to know the Catholic Faith misled?























Parents must prepare themselves for persecution


THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS was given by John Smeaton, the Chief Executive of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and co-founder of Voice of the Family, at our annual NACF pilgrimage to Walsingham on 28 May 2016.

In his hard-hitting address John Smeaton outlined for us the severe and growing threat to the exercise of parental rights and duties from the United Nations and powerful western governments, particularly those of the United States and the United Kingdom. He also drew parents' attention to the extent to which Vatican authorities are now actively collaborating with those very same forces.


THE Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in number 2473: 'Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. Quoting St Ignatius of Antioch, the student of the Apostle John who met his death by being fed to wild beasts, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 'Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God.''271

In my judgment, drawing chiefly on my personal experience as a parent, parents are being called today by God to give supreme witness to the truth of the faith that parents are the primary educators of their children. Like St Ignatius, we must be prepared to become the food of the beasts - not beasts like those who devoured St Ignatius in the Colosseum in the year 108 AD, but the beasts of the 21st century, who seek to destroy the innocence of our children, wherever we find them, in the secular world or in ecclesiastical structures. We parents must be prepared to feed those beasts who seek to destroy the innocence of our children with our uncompromising witness to the truth taught by the Church consistently: that parents are the first and foremost educators of their children. Parents have the right and duty, given by God, to educate their children in such a way as to best ensure their healthy physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual development.

Pope Leo XIII taught in his encyclical Rerum Novarum [1]

'…inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature… The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error…

'Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself.'

Pope Pius XI teaches in his encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, on the church and the German Reich, issued on 14th March 1937:

'Parents… have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school questions fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law and are immoral.'

In its declaration on Christian education, Gravissimus Educationis [2], the Second Vatican Council teaches:

'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.'

Pope John Paul II teaches the faithful in his encyclical Familiaris Consortio [3],

'The task of giving education is rooted in the primary vocation of married couples to participate in God's creative activity: by begetting in love and for love a new person who has within himself or herself the vocation to growth and development, parents by that very fact take on the task of helping that person effectively to live a fully human life…

'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…

'Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents'.

And, finally, in The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality [4], issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family on 8th December, 1995, His Eminence Cardinal Lopez Trujillo teaches:

'…based on the teaching of the Church and with her support, parents must reclaim their own task. By associating together, wherever this is necessary or useful, they should put into action an educational project marked by the true values of the person and Christian love and taking a clear position that surpasses ethical utilitarianism. For education to correspond to the objective needs of true love, parents should provide this education within their own autonomous responsibility…

'Each child is a unique and unrepeatable person and must receive individualized formation. Since parents know, understand and love each of their children in their uniqueness, they are in the best position to decide what the appropriate time is for providing a variety of information, according to their children's physical and spiritual growth. No one can take this capacity for discernment away from conscientious parents…

'The Pontifical Council for the Family therefore urges parents to have confidence in their rights and duties regarding the education of their children, so as to go forward with wisdom and knowledge, knowing that they are sustained by God's gift.'

It is important to note that Catholic doctrine, as Cardinal Lopez Trujillo describes [5] it, regarding parents as the primary educators, is an objective moral truth which is also upheld by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10th December 1948.

The distinguished US attorney and bioethicist, William L. Saunders Jnr, explains how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds parents as the primary educators of their children. He says: '… article 26(3) recognizes that parents are the primary educators of their children. The article states: 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children' [the article states]. Article 26 recognizes the priority of the wishes of parents regarding the education of their own children over any designs of the state'.

William Saunders underlines the historical significance of the Universal Declaration's insistence on parents as the primary educators of their children by citing Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former US ambassador to the Holy See, and former President of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences. In her authoritative book on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights A World Made New Mary Ann Glendon writes:

'In the article on education [26]… [the drafting committee for the Declaration] made an important change, influenced directly by recollections of the National Socialist regime's efforts to turn Germany's renowned educational system into a mechanism for indoctrinating the young with the government's program…. [A]fter Beaufort of the Netherlands recalled the ways in which German schools had been used to undermine the role of parents, a third paragraph was added: 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.''

'In other words' William Saunders comments: 'one of the most important lessons drawn by the framers of the Declaration from the experience of the Second World War was that parental choice in education is a fundamental plank of international peace and security'.

Tragically, nearly 70 years on from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the terrors of the Second World War, it seems that this lesson has not been learned.

Indeed, there is an unequivocal determination on the part of the world's most powerful politicians and UN officials to destroy parental rights over their children's education and formation. This destruction of parental rights takes pride of place in the work of the international body set up by the United Nations 'for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe' [6] - i.e. the Human Rights Council.

In our work at the Human Rights Council, lobbyists for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children often meet country delegates from developing nations who are preparing reports for United Nations compliance committees. The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the UN's compliance committee for the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Now there is nothing in the Convention on the Rights of the Child that can reasonably be construed as approving abortion or access to abortion for children under the age of consent without their parents' knowledge or agreement. However, this does not stop the Compliance Committee from making recommendations promoting access to abortion for children under the age of consent without parents' knowledge or consent. For example, a child's 'right to health' is protected under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to the UN Compliance Committee on the Convention a child's right to health must include access to sexual and reproductive information, including on family planning, abortions and contraceptives, the dangers of early pregnancy, the prevention of HIV/AIDS and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In addition, States parties should ensure that they have access to appropriate information, regardless of their marital status … and whether their parents or guardians consent. So with no basis in international agreements, the powerful UN Compliance Committee on the rights of the child is constantly pressuring countries to pass legislation which undermines the rights and duties of parents.

The destruction of parental rights also takes pride of place in the political agenda of arguably the world's two most powerful politicians over the past seven years: 'In a speech on October 12th 2009, Wellington Webb, appointed by Barack Obama as special adviser to the US mission to the United Nations, confirmed that the Obama administration would be promoting legalised abortion throughout the world, targeting adolescents in a worldwide abortion drive.

Just over a week ago, on 19th May, Hilary Clinton, who, according to current polls is the person most likely to become the next US president, made the following statement at a pro-abortion Women's Conference in Copenhagen:

'This is an important moment. As we chart a course to meet the new Sustainable Development Goals, we have to break down the barriers holding back women and girls around the world,' said Clinton. 'Gender equality, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, must be a core priority. To get there, we need greater political will and resources, and we need to continue to invest in more and better data to measure progress.'

My fellow parents please take careful note of that statement. Remember first of all that in April 2009, Hillary Clinton told Congressman Chris Smith at a hearing of the US Congress Foreign Affairs Committee 'We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion … '

Let's be really clear about this. A core priority for the person most likely to be the world's most powerful politician, the US president, next year, underlined by her last month, is that girls should have access to abortion and contraception as part of 'gender equality'. Hillary Clinton's 'core priority' involves a direct attack on our Catholic faith and on parents as the primary educators of their children, because girls cannot get such access if there are laws in place allowing parents to get in the way.

As I mentioned earlier, Pope Pius XI teaches in his encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, on the church and the German Reich, issued on 14th March 1937:

'Parents… have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school questions fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law and are immoral.'

It's a direct attack on our Catholic faith because girls cannot have equal access to abortion and contraception if there are any parents alive anywhere in the world who are exercising their 'primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions'.

Moving on to Britain, the most powerful politician here is, of course, David Cameron. Here is what David Cameron, now Prime Minister but then Leader of the Opposition, said during an interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight on 23 April 2010:

Paxman: 'You're in favour of faith schools being able to teach sex education as they like'.
Cameron:'Not as they like. That's not right. What we voted for was what the government suggested in the end, which is proper sex education…'

Paxman: 'Should they be free to teach that homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong?'

Cameron: 'No, and the government discussed this and came up with a good idea, which is to say that we wanted a clearer path of sexual education across all schools, but faith schools were not given any exemption but they were able to reflect some of their own faith in the way that this was taught …'

Moving on again, David Cameron is the head of Her Majesty's Government in the UK - and Her Majesty's Government in the UK are one of the world's major funders of International Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF. IPPF, with its headquarters in London, hugely funded by the US government, the UK government, and by the overwhelming majority of nations worldwide, are the enemies of the world's families, and, in particular, of our families which strive to uphold Catholic teaching and the natural law regarding parents in their role as the primary educators of their children.

In 2011, at the Commission on the Status of Women at the UN in New York, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Population Council and other pro-abortion groups held a meeting to launch worldwide a massive programme of so-called comprehensive sex education entitled: 'It's All One Curriculum':

This curriculum shows itself to be nakedly polemical rather than educational. It states in its guidance for teachers of our young people:

'People can support or join movements for social change at the global level. For example: …youth-led networks for sexual and reproductive rights and services.' (p.231)

'Reproductive rights and services' is the term defined by IPPF and by the British Government as including the right to abortion and contraception - unrestricted by the values or the faith of the teacher, and unrestricted by parents. Note carefully that international powers are not only opposing parents as the primary educators, they are seeking to manipulate young people so that young people see themselves as the educators of their parents.

And on page 61 of their curriculum guidelines they advise educators: 'Certain social movements promote greater equality and dignity within marriage. These include: movements to legalize same-sex marriage'

In the same document, International Planned Parenthood Federation tell teachers of young children that sexual self-abuse is a human right. They say:

'Sexuality may be expressed by oneself … Sexuality - expressed alone…can be a source of pleasure and meaning in life.' (p.84) '… Masturbation is an important way that people learn about their bodies and sexuality … Masturbation is a safe sexual behavior. It is neither physically nor mentally harmful.' (p.99)]

IPPF states on Page 81 of 'It's All One Curriculum': 'An educator's own values should not interfere with teaching about sexuality … Use respectful terms…particularly in regard to same-sex attraction, sexually active girls, and young people who do not conform to conventional gender norms … Teachers must…respect their confidentiality.' This is a thinly-veiled warning to teachers that they must not obstruct children's so-called sexual rights but that they must obstruct parents as the primary educators of their children.

My dear fellow parents, I want now to draw attention to Dr Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and his work, at a very high level in the Vatican and with the Vatican's support, of opposing and undermining parents as the primary educators of their children worldwide.

Jeffrey Sachs heads the Sustainable Solutions Network, which was responsible for producing a draft for the Sustainable Development Goals, which call for increased access to abortion and contraception worldwide.

Jeffrey Sachs made a plea for legalizing abortion as a cost-effective way to eliminate 'unwanted children' when contraception fails in his 2008 book Commonwealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet.

In June last year (2015) he called for the UN to provide 1 million healthcare workers for Africa. That is 1 million UN workers travelling through Africa promoting abortion and contraception.

Sachs was in the Vatican in November 2015 to take part in a workshop organised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which discussed how to 'use children as agents of change' in pursuing sustainable development and the environmental agenda.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences' workshop explicitly cited the papal encyclical Laudato Si, as the basis for its work and in truth such efforts seem to be endorsed by the encyclical in paragraphs 13 and in paragraphs 209-215.

I repeat: the subject of the Vatican Workshop last November was 'using children as agents of change' in pursuing sustainable development and the environmental agenda.

Laudato Si makes no reference to parents as the primary educators of their children. Using children as agents of change in pursuing sustainable development and the environmental agenda will very soon become a required part of school curricula throughout the world. Have no doubt that the worldwide population control powers-that-be, led by people like Jeffrey Sachs, will make their influence well and truly felt in shaping those school curricula.

We are seeing exactly the same pattern here as I noted in the International Planned Parenthood Federation's sex education programme It's All One Curriculum in which teachers are guided to manipulate young people in order that young people see themselves as the educators of their parents on making abortion and contraception freely available. Remember that the note for teachers on page 231 reads: 'People can support or join movements for social change at the global level. For example: …youth-led networks for sexual and reproductive rights and services.'

It is extremely disturbing that at the very moment when the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the organization which I lead, and other pro-life organisations, have been fighting tooth-and-nail at the United Nations to protect developing countries from the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, anti-parent elements written into the sustainable development goals, that the Holy See has been seeking Jeffrey Sachs's advice and permitting him to help shape the Holy See's policies on sustainable development.

Jeffrey Sachs has played a leading role at Vatican conferences and workshops on these matters no less than six times in the last few years and has had a personal audience with Pope Francis.

I note here with great foreboding that the omission of any reference to Church teaching on the use of contraception in the papal encyclical on the environment leaves Catholics ill-prepared to resist the international population control agenda. The encyclical calls for increased international environmental action in paragraphs 173-175, while neglecting to prepare Catholics for what such action will undoubtedly involve: renewed attempts to further impose contraception and abortion on the developing world. There is now a grave danger that our children will be exposed to this agenda under the guise of education on environmental concerns. The proposed plans of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and the lack of clear teaching on these dangers in the encyclical, put us on our guard. Catholic parents must resist all attacks on our children, even when they emanate from within the Vatican.

We must have the maturity to speak out when things are badly wrong at the highest levels of the Church and offer our own perspective in all humility to those in positions of authority.

In fact, as lay Catholics and, for those of us who are parents, as mothers and fathers, we have both the authority and the obligation to speak out on serious matters in defence of the common good. When we do so, we always seek to raise our concerns with the greatest reverence for the episcopal and for the papal office and solely out of a sincere desire to assist the hierarchy in its proclamation of Catholic teaching on life, marriage and the family and to further the authentic good of the family and its most vulnerable members.

In raising our concerns, of necessity sometimes publicly, we are fulfilling our duty as clearly laid out in the Code of Canon Law, which states:

'According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.' (Canon 212 §3)

It is a kind of martyrdom. We certainly have to be prepared to be isolated at best in our own parish and local communities and within our wider family units. At worst, we must be prepared to be treated with contempt, publicly condemned by religious authorities, and possibly prosecuted and imprisoned by the secular authorities - for example, as the homosexual cultural and politico-legal so called 'rights' agenda advances around the world.

Dear Fellow Parents … It's up to us parents … It's up to us parents, in particular, in the National Association of Catholic Families. Last October, in the final report of the Family Synod, 257 Synod Fathers, or 94% of the Catholic bishops gathered for the Synod, voted to undermine our God-given authority as the primary educators of our children.

The sentence, in paragraph 58 of the document, reads:

'The family, while maintaining its primary space in education (cf. Gravissimum Educationis, 3), cannot be the only place for teaching sexuality.'

This is directly contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church which is that the family can be the only place for teaching sexuality if that is the choice that the parents make.

For my own part, with section 212, subsection 3, of the Canon Law in mind, I have written to His Holiness, Pope Francis, the following letter in relation to his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, which deals with parents as the primary educators and other important matters:

Your Holiness,

With reverence and with attention to common advantage and the dignity of persons, and as a husband and father, I consider that the section of Amoris Laetitia entitled 'The Need for Sex Education' seriously fails parents at a time when parental rights regarding sex education are under serious and sustained attack in many nations of the world, and at the international institutions. This section spans more than five pages without making even one reference to parents, albeit parental rights are mentioned earlier in another context. On the other hand there is reference to 'educational institutions'. Yet sex education is 'a basic right and duty of parents' which 'must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them' as your predecessor, Pope John Paul II, taught the faithful in Familiaris Consortio, Number, 37.

Your Holiness, Catholic Bishops' Conferences around the world, including in Britain, are collaborating with our anti-life opponents in the birth control and sex education lobbies, in helping to impose corrupting sex education programmes on primary and secondary schoolchildren. Such programmes, including in Catholic schools, involve providing our children with access to abortion and contraception. Thus, Holy Father, the Bishops' Christ-given authority, which we the faithful hold in such reverence, is being instrumentalised to scandalise and cause terrible harm to our children .Amoris Laetitia will serve to make this terrible situation even worse.

Holy Father, I believe, as all Catholics believe, that the Pope is Peter, the rock Christ chose on which to build His Church. The Pope serves the unchangeable truth of Christ's teaching. However, Your Holiness, the Pope is not the master but the servant of the truth.

Your Holiness, once again with reverence and with attention to common advantage and the dignity of persons, as well as with my authority as a husband and father, I note that there are references to public adultery in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia which fail to point out the intrinsic evil of adultery. I consider that such references will result in scandalising little ones in the way contained in Jesus Christ's warning in verse 92, chapter 9, of the Gospel of St Mark.

Even worse, Holy Father, Amoris Laetitia, the Apostolic Exhortation, at the very least, raises the possibility that adulterous sexual acts may be justifiable. This shows a lack of mercy because it denies Catholics the truth about right and wrong. It denies Catholics the knowledge they need to exercise true freedom, freedom from sin. It also shows a lack of mercy because it sends children the false message that marriage is not indissoluble. Arguably, Your Holiness, the most effective way of destroying children is to destroy marriage as an indissoluble lifetime union of a man and a woman.

Holy Father, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that certain actions are 'intrinsically evil' such things as adultery.

I believe, Your Holiness, as all Catholics believe, because Jesus Christ Himself taught, that marriage is indissoluble and, Jesus taught, if someone divorces or puts away their spouse and marries another, he or she commits adultery - which is considered a mortal sin, the kind of serious sin by which one cuts oneself off from God's love. (Matthew, 19)

I believe, as all Catholics believe, because Jesus Christ Himself taught, that in going to Holy Communion we receive the body of Jesus Christ, God Himself: we receive life and the promise of eternal life. (John, 6:54)

Finally, Holy Father, I believe, as all Catholics believe the teaching of St Paul that if a person eats and drinks the body and blood of Jesus Christ unworthily, we don't receive life or grace, we eat and drink judgement to ourselves 'not discerning the body of the Lord'. (Corinthians: 1,11.29)

Holy Father, I know lots of ordinary Catholics both in my family life and through my work. I know women and men who've been deserted by their spouse for another person and either left alone with children or left alone without their children. If that deserted spouse were then to see their wife or husband with a new partner, receiving the Body of Christ in Communion, that sends the message to everyone, including the children, that marriage is not indissoluble after all. This is destructive of the truth about marriage. It's also damaging psychologically and spiritually, not least for the children.

Holy Father, with reverence and with attention to common advantage and the dignity of persons, I appeal to you to recognise the grave errors in the recently published Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, in particular those sections which will lead to the desecration of the Holy Eucharist and to the harming of our children, and to withdraw the Apostolic Exhortation with immediate effect.

Yours sincerely in Christ etc.'

In the Gospel according to St Matthew, Chapter 14 verses 3 - 4, we read:
'For Herod had apprehended John and bound him, and put him into prison, because of Herodias, his brother's wife.

'For John said to him: It is not lawful for thee to have her.'

Fellow parents, we must be prepared to be apprehended and put into prison, at worst; or we must be prepared to treated with contempt, isolated in our parishes, and communities, or to lose our jobs - by speaking out and saying such things as: 'It is not lawful for you to teach my children that abortion is OK, that contraception is OK, that homosexual so-called 'marriage' is OK'. We are being called by God to bear supreme witness to the truth of the faith that parents are the primary educators of their children.

[1] Issued on 15th May 1891

[2] 28th October 1965

[3] 22nd November 1981

[4] 8 December 1995

[5] The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, no. 42

[6] http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/pages/hrcindex.aspx





We must proclaim the 'truth about the conjugal union' to renew Christian culture, Cardinal Burke tells NACF Walsingham pilgrims


CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE has put forward the thesis that the rapid decline of western Christian culture will not begin to be reversed until Catholics boldly live out and then proclaim to the rest of society the 'truth regarding human sexuality and human life.'


In a tour de force at the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham on May 29, the cardinal said, 'Fundamental to the transformation of western culture is the proclamation of the truth about the conjugal union, in its fullness, and the correction of the contraceptive thinking which fears life, which fears procreatio

Speaking at a conference organized by the NACF, Cardinal Burke explained that Christians living in a 'totally secularized world' are called to the 'new evangelization,' which he explained means 'teaching the faith, celebrating the faith in the Sacraments and through prayer and devotion, and living the faith through the practice of the virtues, as if for the first time, that is, with the engagement and energy of the first disciples, of the first apostles to our native places.'

But unless Christians practice the 'virtues of purity, chastity and modesty, that is, the living of the truth regarding human sexuality and human life' they will not grow in genuine 'holiness of life.' He continued:

The respect for human life is related essentially to the respect for the integrity of marriage and the family as they come to us from God. The attack on the innocent and defenseless life of the unborn, for example, has its origin in an erroneous view of human sexuality, which attempts to eliminate, by mechanical or chemical means, the essentially procreative nature of the conjugal act. The error maintains that the artificially altered act retains its integrity. The claim is that the act remains unitive or loving, even though the procreative nature of the act has been radically violated. In fact, it is not unitive, for one or both of the partners withholds an essential part of the gift of self, which is the essence of the conjugal union. The so-called 'contraceptive mentality' is essentially anti-life. Many forms of what is called contraception are, in fact, abortifacient, that is, they destroy a life which has already been conceived, has already begun.

The manipulation of the conjugal act, as Blessed Pope Paul VI courageously observed, has led to many forms of violence to marriage and family life. Through the spread of the contraceptive mentality, especially among the young, human sexuality is no longer seen as the gift of God, which draws a man and a woman together, in a bond of lifelong and faithful love, crowned by the gift of new human life, but, rather, as a tool for personal gratification. Once sexual union is no longer seen to be, by its very nature, procreative, human sexuality is abused in ways that are profoundly harmful and indeed destructive of individuals and of society itself. One has only to think of the devastation which is daily wrought in our world by the multi-billion dollar industry of pornography.

The cardinal stated that the 'restoration of the respect for the integrity of the conjugal act is essential to the future of western culture, the advancement of a culture of life.'

He warned Catholics to be 'attentive to a false notion of conscience, which would actually use the conscience to justify sinful acts, to betray our call to holiness.'

The cardinal offered no critique of Pope Francis, but many of his arguments offered a clear corrective to much-criticized points from the Holy Father's recent Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

The pope's treatment of conscience, in particular, has come under criticism for the apparent indication that it could allow one to licitly commit a sinful act, while fully cognizant that the act is sinful. The pope wrote in paragraph 303 of his Exhortation: '[Conscience] can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one's limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.'

But Cardinal Burke suggested that Catholics who seek 'holiness of life, to live more totally and faithfully for Christ, namely, to give our lives to Christ, without any reserve,' must 'train' and 'form' their consciences to 'listen to God's voice alone and to reject what would weaken or compromise, in any way, our witness to the truth in which He alone instructs us in the Church.'

'The conscience, the voice of God, speaking to our souls, is, in the words of the Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, 'the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.' As such, the conscience is ever attuned to Christ Himself Who instructs and informs it through His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff, and the Bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff,' he said.

He went on to quote Pope Benedict XVI, who called conscience 'man's capacity to recognize truth,' stating that it 'imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it. Conscience is both capacity for truth and obedience to the truth which manifests itself to anyone who seeks it with an open heart.'

Commented Burke: 'Conscience, therefore, does not set each of us apart as an arbiter of what is right and good, but unites us in the pursuit of the one truth, ultimately Our Lord Jesus Christ Who is the only arbiter of the right and good, so that our thoughts, words and actions put that truth into practice.'

Burke went on to discuss the family as a 'primary agent of the transformation of the culture,' focusing on the responsibility of parents as the first educators of their children. He warned parents to guard their children from ideologies that have crept into schools, even Catholic ones, that are at odds with the Gospel.

'Today, parents must be especially vigilant, for sadly, in some places, schools have become the tools of a secular agenda inimical to the Christian life. One thinks, for example, of the compulsory so-called 'gender education' in some schools, which is a direct attack on marriage at its foundation and, therefore, on the family,' he said.

He continued: 'Good parents and good citizens must be attentive to the curriculum which schools are following and to the life in the schools, in order to assure that our children are being formed in the human and Christian virtues and are not being deformed by indoctrination in the confusion and error concerning the most fundamental truths of human life and of the family, which will lead to their slavery to sin and, therefore, profound unhappiness, and to the destruction of culture. Today, for example, we sadly find the need to speak about 'traditional marriage,' as if there were another kind of marriage. There is only one kind of marriage as God has given it to us at the Creation and as Christ has redeemed it by His saving Passion and Death.

The cardinal went on briefly to touch upon 'education in human love or 'sex education' as it is popularly but inappropriately called,' a topic that was also addressed by Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia.

While the Pope affirmed parental rights in education in chapter one, calling the 'overall education of children a 'most serious duty' and at the same time a 'primary right' of parents,' in chapter seven which, in part, deals with the 'Need for Sex Education,' not once does he make reference to the role of parents, although he does make reference to 'educational institutions.' Family leaders have expressed concern that the glaring omission will be used by activists to override parental objections to the advancement of a radical sexual agenda within schools.

To such activists Burke stated clearly: 'Parents are responsible, above all, for the education of their children in the truth about human sexuality and its essential relationship to chaste love.'












Ball. Stannard, Nicholls





An Open Letter


Ms.Oona Stannard
Chief Executive
The Catholic Education Service
39 Eccleston Square
London SW1V IBX



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
















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.

TRMTIM MATTHEWS writes - 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.




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



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  


Fromm Habermas



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.



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'.


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.



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).




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'.


'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





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.























Munich 08





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



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


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!




  Procession      Pro-lifers    Pro-lifers


Police      Police presence     Marchers


Police surveillance      Police survellance     Munich pro-lifers


Archb. Kurtz    MEMORIAL ROSES



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.






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."



























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.