- WHY FATIMA
- FATIMA CENTER
- PRAYER & DEVOTION
The family is under attack. We must be informed and aware of this attack in order to do our duty to defend the family. The following article points out the growing and very great and imminent danger the family is in by the encroachments by the United Nations and its so-called Charter of Children's Rights.
If you are not aware of the attack on the family, you must for that reason alone read this article. If you are already aware of the attack on the family you will need to be informed of this most insidious attack yet, against the family in the "legal" arena. You need to be informed now so you can act. If the UN Charter Treaty becomes law in the U.S.A. your children could be taken from you forever sometime in the near future. Prayer, vigilance and keeping informed are crucial in this battle.
The following article is taken from the Spring 1993 issue of Crying in the Wilderness Newsletter published by the Benedictine Monks of Holy Family Monastery, 361 Cross Keys Road, Berlin, NJ 08009. We are indebted to them for bringing this "Red Alert" issue to our attention. All of this article that follows: notes, titles, subtitles, and footnotes are from Crying in the Wilderness.
"THOU SHALT NOT Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother!" - Hillary Clinton's Socialist Commandment for America's Youth
Note: This is a brief look at the lines of battle forming for the coming assault on what remains of God's order. As long as parents are allowed to instruct their children in the privacy of the home, the old world order, that which has God as its end, might endure. The new atheistic world order can only be erected on the total ruin of the old: thus the "rights" of children are presently being formulated in a manner to complete the overthrow of parental authority and dismantle the family- that state within the state - that stands as the last barrier to absolute government control of all individuals. U.S. News and World Report's John Leo called it "a brave new world we can do without."
There is a serious, deadly movement afoot that claims average parents are incompetent fools and cannot be trusted to raise their own children. It is a movement that says children should have their own rights independent of their parents. It is a movement that says parents should have no say over their children, and that the only authority the children should answer to is the STATE, no matter what the parents think or will for their sons and daughters. It is a movement that has been operating with quiet, unswerving determination, with secrecy being the key to its ultimate success. On the international level it is fueled by the United Nations under a new charter entitled The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. On the national level it is fueled by the Children's Defense Fund and by First Lady, Hillary Clinton who has been tenaciously working toward this evil goal for over 20 years. Organized pedophiles are also working for its success, as they want the "age of consent" to be as low as possible so as to claim the legal right to perform homosexual acts with your "consenting" seven-year-old son. Traces of it will be found in education, social services and precedent-setting legal decisions. It is what is truly behind the rash of Child Abuse publicity all over the media, the emphasis being the average unsupervised adult will abuse children. It is a movement working for the day when parents will wake up and suddenly discover, to their horror, that their children no longer belong to them. Though it may sound rather fantastic, the threat is real, the danger is imminent and the consequences will be disastrous for the family and society.
Most parents are unaware of the existence of a treaty that could "legally" strip them of parental rights. Of course, the treaty isn't blatant about doing this; it is promoted as a document aimed at helping disadvantaged and abused children in Third World nations. It is called "The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child", and it has been ratified in 134 countries.
If ratified in this country, the treaty has the potential to:
In 1954, the U.N. adopted a "Rights of the Child" convention in Geneva which was updated in 1959 and called "The Declaration of the Rights of the Child." Though it was a good declaration (even for the U.N.), over the past few decades it has since been modified under the influence of humanists and feminists and it is now called "The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child." It is quite different from the original documents particularly because it is full of ambiguities - and where you have ambiguities in a legal document or treaty, then it can be interpreted in 1,000 different ways, by the prevailing (liberal) fashion or by whoever happens to be on the Supreme Court.
Most of the document is not so bad, and the reason many countries have signed and ratified it is because of the plight of children in Third World countries with serious, urgent problems of homelessness, sexual abuse, hunger and the like. But in countries with Western-style governments in which there are legal systems where phrases are strictly interpreted according to how they are written, this convention is not going to help children who suffer from homelessness, physical or sexual abuse but will be a further attack on the rights of parents. The U.N. treaty is actually longer than the U.S. constitution, and despite references to undefined "rights and duties" of parents, the treaty does not recognize any specific right of parents to make decisions for their children. In short, the only authority the children will answer to is THE STATE.
Out of the 54 articles in this treaty, a quick look will be taken at some of the more dangerous ones:
Article 12 assures the "right to express views freely in all matters affecting the child - the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with age and maturity." This provision has the true potential to interfere with the relationships between parent and child as well as between teacher and child in the classroom. It may encourage irresponsible children to negotiate school curriculum acceptable to them. In other words, the children will tell the teacher what to teach!
Article 13 assures the child has "freedom of expression which is declared to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds ... whether orally, in writing or in print - in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." This could make it difficult or impossible for parents to keep their children from material coming from schools, media or elsewhere that parents find objectionable on religious or other grounds. No allowance is made for possible supervision based on family standards of decency. Not only could parents not exclude their children from certain sex-education material in schools, but the child would have the "right" to any "information" he wished, no matter how immoral. American entertainment companies already lobby aggressively against any attempt to restrict what children can purchase, including sexually explicit music, films or magazines. Under this article, parents could also lose their right to restrict their children from receiving the Planned Parenthood contraceptives of all forms.
Article 14 guarantees "freedom of thought, conscience and religion." Under this article, it may be impossible for parents to discourage their children from joining false religions, fringe religious sects or even satanic cults. Also, parents may not be able to enforce the teaching of their own religion. Under this article, for example, a Roman Catholic parent could lose his right to instruct or to have his child instructed in the Roman Catholic Faith if the child doesn't want to learn it. Also, if Junior doesn't want to go to Church on Sunday (and what child does?) the State could intervene to protect the child's "freedom of religion." You see, if ANY of these U.N. articles are violated by parents, it could be construed as a form of "child abuse", and the 1-800 CHILD ABUSE HOTLINES designed for children to rat on their parents are already in place.
Article 15 recognizes the right of the child to "freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly." This could prevent parents from controlling which individuals, groups and even gangs a child associates with. Parents will not be able to resist a teenager forming inappropriate and possibly harmful relationships. This is particularly dangerous since children are now being taught their "rights" in schools.
Article 16 includes "protection of the child's right from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy." The "Right to Privacy" can play terrible havoc, as most pro-lifers know. The Supreme Court's 1965 Griswald "Right to Privacy" legislation was the necessary foundation for the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
In this article, the word "arbitrary" is ambiguous and undefined. It could come to mean that if Mom is worried her 13-year-old daughter may be using drugs, alcohol, contraceptives or is seeking an abortion, Mom may LOSE the right to check and supervise. Given the present state of things, this could realistically go so far as to protect a teenager's "right to privacy" as to what goes on in his or her bedroom.
Article 17 charges the State with the responsibility of encouraging the mass media to disseminate international and cultural information ... "to promote the child's social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health", as if today's media could actually be trusted with such a task! The mass media is openly pro-abortion, pro-humanist, pro-evolutionist, pro-socialist, pro-atheist, pro-feminist, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexual and anti-Christ! How could any self-respecting parent trust the "social, spiritual, and moral well-being" of their children to such a godless, international monster as "the media"?
Article 18 grants the children of working parents "the right to benefit from child-care services." This could lead to universal child care, with State control over all individuals and institutions providing it - a goal that the liberal elite, in particular the Children's Defense Fund, has been working toward for years.
Article 19 grants the State the right to take "all measures to protect children from all forms of physical and moral violence." All forms? It is clear that this could be used to outlaw corporal punishment, including spanking, as has happened in Sweden and is on the way to happening here. James Garabino, president of Chicago's Erickson Institute for Advanced Study of Child Development holds the opinion that every parent who spanks his child is a potential child-abuser. He supports the idea of a home visit program for pregnant women through the first few years of the child's life. This is not just a case of professional newsybodyism, but is actually Soviet-style state-invasion of the minutest details of family life. (Who says "Communism is dead"?)
Article 20 says children can be removed from families "for their own best interests when necessary." Of course, there must sometimes be intervention in limited hard cases, but this article has the horrifying potential of being abused by social service agencies. The word "necessary" is never defined and leaves the door open for wide interpretation. It is not unthinkable that this article could be used to remove children from parents who home-school if home-schooling is deemed to be against the child's "best interest". Many parents who exercise the right to teach their children at home will testify how much State-run education detests and even sometimes persecutes home-schoolers.
Article 24 requires governments to develop, among other things, "family planning education services." This article is dangerous not only because the Grand Master of Abortion and Mandatory Population Control, Planned Parenthood (a strong U.N. ally) is practically foaming at the mouth waiting for its implementation, but primarily because the word "family" is never defined. Australian pro-life leader, Babette Frances has said that conservative groups in her country have pressured their government to define 'family' and the government has refused to do so. She asks, "... does 'family' mean a husband and wife with children, a couple living together out of wedlock, or two lesbians and a canary?" She cites a case in Australia where a third-party lesbian couple were awarded custody of a child while the biological grandmother was refused custody only to be granted weekend visiting rights.
Article 27 requires the state to recognize the right of every child to a standard of living "adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development." It must be asked, Who will decide what is an "adequate standard"? It is clearly possible that parents may be considered guilty of transgressing this article by teaching their children, for example, that homosexuality is sinful - especially if proper "moral and social development" is determined by whatever is politically correct. Already in this country, there are some schools who pass or fail students depending upon whether they have "proper" social attitudes, including acceptance of sodomites. The archduke of atheist education, John Dewey, whose philosophy permeates American education, had said that the purpose of schools is not to teach children to read and write, but to train them to become young socialists. This Article could be a John Dewey dream come true.
Supporters of the U.N. Convention are quick to point to Article 5 which they claim safeguards the rights of parents. This Article requires the state parties of the convention to respect the right of parents and "to provide in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in this present constitution." In other words, in the name of safeguarding parents, it opens the door to have parental conduct subject to external scrutiny. Who decides what is "appropriate" or what is "consistent" with the evolving capacities of the child? If the new rights are to have any real meaning, the child must have a right of appeal against parental direction and guidance regarded by the child to be unfair or even annoying - to seek "help" at some social service or government agency. A chilling mark of the 1990's is the horrifying spectacle of children being goaded to take their parents to court, and with this U.N. Declaration close to being ratified, this is only the beginning.
In the Preamble of "The Rights of the Child", there is mention of protection of the child before and after birth. It would seem therefore, to be a pro-life document. The truth, however, is that the drafters placed the pro-life clause in the Preamble precisely because the Preamble is not binding, only the 54 articles are - in which there is no mention of protection of the unborn. Sadly, the Vatican has ratified this treaty, with the stipulation that "child" is interpreted as "born and unborn", as well as a few other reservations. It has been said that the Vatican ratified this treaty due to concern for children in Third World countries. Be that as it may, it must be stated that despite any benefits that the world's poor children may receive from this document, the U.N. Declaration is and remains a clear threat to parents' rights in Western countries.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989. UNICEF hosted the "World Summit on the Children "on September 29-30, 1990 which was heralded as "the largest gathering ever of world leaders." More than 70 Heads of State were present, and the Rights of the Child Treaty, which UNICEF's James Grant calls "A Magna Carta for children", seems to have received worldwide support. Back then, the U.S. House and Senate passed resolutions calling on the President to sign the treaty. George Bush, though he attended the World Summit on the Children, finished his term and left the White House with this Declaration unsigned.
Representative Thomas J. Biley (R-VA) was a lone voice warning of the true nature of this dangerous treaty. Not only did he say "the Convention represents a potential threat to our form of government", but also that this U.N. Declaration "places government in a superior position to its citizens by granting these rights to children." He warned in a Washington Times op-ed that this treaty allows too much government intrusion at the expense of parents. He concluded with the grave observation that "ratification (of this treaty) is not about children, it's about power." Though Senator Jesse Helms was instrumental in having the bill blocked in September, 1990 under President Bush, the Treaty is not dead. And now with the socialist-style Clinton Administration firmly in place, the ratification of this bill is closer than ever. A little-known fact is that First Lady, Hillary Clinton has been a non-stop promoter of "Children's Rights" for over 20 years.
The April, 1993 issue of The Ladies Home Journal featured First Lady, Hillary Clinton on the cover. She was the centerpiece of an article on the 10 smartest women in America. The journal made no bones about where she ranks - Hillary is #1. Though it was never explained how this conclusion was reached, The Ladies Home Journal pronounced de fide that Hillary is the smartest woman in the country. Not just ONE of the smartest, mind you, THE smartest.
But learning what actually constitutes co-president Hillary's "smartness" will make us yearn for the days when our only worry was a Vice-President who misspelled "potato."
Hillary has made no secret of her feminist, leftist ideas. Her contempt for parental authority and the traditional family is part of the public record. In the early 70's Hillary began her writing career as an editor of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, a leftist publication complete with articles sounding sympathy for Black Panthers and drawings depicting policemen as pigs. The pot-smoking, bell-bottomed, unshaven, Woodstock-loving, Age of Aquarius, "anti-establishment", Abbe Hoffman revolutionaries of the late 60's/early 70's did have their intellectual upper-crust, and Hillary was part of that "elite".
One of the articles she helped edit called for radicals to move to a lightly-populated State and seize control. "Experimentation with drugs, sex, individual lifestyles or radical rhetoric is an insufficient alternative. Total experimentation is necessary. New ideas must be taken out of heads and transformed into reality." According to American Spectator's Daniel Wattenburg, Hillary's response to this article was that it was "long on rhetoric and short on action." In other words, "don't just talk revolution, do it!"
At the 1992 Republican National Convention, during a nationwide televised speech, Pat Buchanan publicly stated that "Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have the right to sue their parents." The media was outraged. They said Pat's attack on Hillary was an un-called-for cheap-shot. They said that Pat was disgraceful. They said that Pat was a Nazi. They said that Pat was a Fascist. They said that Pat was a hatemonger. They said a lot of nasty things about Pat, but they never said that he was wrong.
Even liberals worry about Hillary Clinton's militant support of Children's Rights. U.S. News and World Report's John Leo observed that Hillary has a wrong-minded view of relations between parents and children. He wrote "A great many people now understand that the rights approach will exacerbate friction in the home and open the door for lawyers, judges, bureaucrats and 'the helping professionals' to make a further mess of the family ... This is a brave new world we can do without."
In the October, 1992 issue of Harper's Magazine, Christopher Lasch writes that what First Lady Hillary Clinton really wants is to redefine the family and diminish the traditional roles of parents as heads of family. After reading Mrs. Clinton's prolific writings that span nearly 20 years, Lasch concludes that her view is a head-on collision with the traditional family model. He reports that Hillary believes:
that children should be equal to adults before the law.
that parents should NOT legally have the final say in the molding and directing of their children's lives.
there should be more State intervention in child-rearing.
Such monstrous views should be of no surprise to anyone who is familiar with vintage 1970s feminism. For example, Hillary compares marriage as an institution with slavery and the Indian reservation system: She spelled this out in the Harvard Education Review 43:4m. 1974: "The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position ... Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system."
Both Bill and Hillary said that children and families will be her issue in the Clinton administration, which is kind of like assigning the cat to guard the hamsters. Hillary Clinton's view is that the "traditional" family needs fixing because it stands in the way of children's rights. She regards the children's rights movement as a natural follow-up to other social movements from women's suffrage to civil rights.
So no one will assert this to be an exaggeration, here is what Hillary actually said in a 1974 Harvard Educational Review article:
"I want to be a voice for America's children ... advocating ... the immediate abolition of the legal status of minority and the reversal of the legal presumption of incompetence of minors in favor of presumption of competence; the rejection of the legal presumption of the identity of interest between parents and their children, and permission for competent children to assert those independent interests in the courts."
In order to comprehend the full horror of her arrogance, let us take a closer look at this statement:
When Hillary says she wants "the immediate abolition of the legal status of minority", she is saying that children, by being subject to their parents, are being "discriminated against" as a second-class minority group - and this must stop!
When Hillary says she wants "the reversal of the legal presumption of incompetence in favor of the minor's presumption of competence", she is saying that children should always be presumed to be competent to choose their own goals and direct their own lives regardless of parents' wishes.
When Hillary says she wants "the extension to children of all procedural rights guaranteed to adults" she is saying that children should be treated by law as independent citizens first, and family members second.
When Hillary says she wants "the rejection of the legal presumption of the identity of interest between parents and their children", she is saying that if the children's interests are different than their parents, they should not have to listen to their parents but pursue their own interests.
When Hillary says she wants "permission for competent children to assert those independent interests in the courts" she is saying that in the name of children "pursuing their own interests" they should have the legal right for courtroom battles against their own parents.
In response to such views, Republican National Chairman, Rich Bond was only slightly off-base when he said Hillary believes that children should be able to sue their parents to avoid helping with chores. Phyllis Schlafly pointed out it is actually more precise to say that Hillary believes children should be able to sue their parents if they want to play hookey from school or joyride in the family car.
Here are Hillary's own words: "We are talking about everything from compulsory school attendance to driving privileges to nurturing requirements." Then she added, "Decisions about motherhood, abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the children's future should not be made unilaterally by the parents." (Teacher College Press, 1979)
In "Children's Rights, A Legal Perspective", Mrs. Clinton calls for "a theory that adequately explains the state's appropriate role in child rearing". Though she tries to cover her tracks by saying that state authority must be exercised only in warranted cases, Mr. Lasch observes that her writings leave the unmistakable impression that it is the family that holds children back, it is the State that sets them free. Her socialist mentality couldn't be more obvious!
Historically, parents have been thought to serve as stewards of their children's lives until the age of maturity with the State intervening only in extreme cases. Hillary Clinton, however, dismisses such a notion as "romanticism about the family." She believes that parents who wish to maintain their historical authority display "recalcitrance in the face of progress". Of course, her idea of "progress" is the endless string of government programs including Head-start and Federal day-care centers.
Mrs. Clinton served for years as a chairman of the "Children's Defense Fund" (headed by Marian Wright Edelmen - who was #2 on Ladies Home Journal's "10 Smartest Women" list) which is the chief vehicle for those who want the government to take over the raising of children. The CDF's goal under the Clinton administration is to have the U.N. Treaty adopted so that child-advocacy lawyers can assert children's "rights" against their parents. Phyllis Schlafly reports that since the Treaty is a legal document, if ratified, it would become part of the "supreme law of the land". We can therefore expect ACLU lawyers to bring a series of test cases to see how far the courts will extend its provision.
Already, horror stories are coming in from all over the country and even different parts of the world that if a Social Worker comes to a home and sees bruises on a child, (even if the bruises were the result of falling off a bike) the parents may immediately be suspect of "Child Abuse" and threatened with having the child removed "for the child's best-interests". In truth, this new breed of professional busybodies and social engineers are not the least bit interested in whether Johnny is receiving his black-and-blues from an abusive parent, this is simply a tool for the destruction of parental rights and state control of children. Our First Lady's writings prove this. Hillary Clinton's philosophy is the same as the Children's Defense Fund, and the Children's Defense Fund supports the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The threat is real, the danger is imminent and the consequences will be disastrous for the family and society.
Though it is true that the Church and State each operate in their own particular sphere, it is also true that Church and State both exercise their influence over the same object - man! Therefore, when State or social institutions introduce programs or laws that are in direct conflict with natural or Divine law, placing the nation's people in danger of suffering great detriment to family and society as well as a great loss of souls, Church leaders are not "meddling in politics" by raising their voices against these evil trends, they are only doing their moral duty.
The nation's Catholic Bishops possess the right and the power to stop this wicked "Children's Rights" movement in its tracks - by warning the souls entrusted to them (25% of the nation's population) of the dangers, by calling the faithful to prayer and penance begging God's grace to halt this onslaught of evil and by urging fathers and mothers to mount a powerful, effective resistance. But our church leaders are silent - snug and cozy inside their tax-exempt sanctuaries - being either ignorant of the problem, naive in thinking that evil of this magnitude just could not exist, or lacking the Faith and conviction to raise their voices against the Hillary's, "child-savers" and family-destroying government bureaucracies. Yet all Catholic bishops, pastors, clergymen, educators and publications have the solemn duty to speak out and urge a militant resistance even if doing so means suffering the wrath of Caesar and sure persecution by the media. Even for the sake of "ecumenism" the bishops couldn't lose by fighting "children's rights", since Jews, Protestants, Catholics and a host of other religions agree that parents have God-given authority over their children that the State may not usurp. By being silent, they display themselves as bad Catholic leaders, or (even worse by some Churchmen's standards) as bad ecumenists!
There are many well-meaning people fighting "Children's Rights" on the grounds that they are "unconstitutional". Though this may be true, does it mean there would be nothing wrong with government driving a wedge between parents and children providing this movement was started in the 1730s, before the birth of Thomas Jefferson? In truth, "Children's Rights" are a severe violation of natural and Divine law which are changeless as well as irrespective of time or place.
"Children's Rights" are a grave sin against the 4th Commandment. "Honor thy Father and thy Mother" comprises the duty of children to love and obey their parents, as well as the duty of parents to love, teach and protect their children. "Children's Rights" claims God's family law regarding children isn't good enough, it encourages kids to thumb their nose at their parents, and forces Dad and Mom to surrender their divinely ordained parental authority. No wonder the 10 Commandments are "against the law" in public schools.
"Children's Rights" are a grave sin against the Sacrament of Matrimony. It is Catholic teaching that the primary end of marriage is the begetting andeducating of children, and these children must be educated as Members of Christ. "Children's Rights" audaciously claims that parents are not the primary educators of their children, the State is!
"Children's Rights" are a direct violation against Catholic social teaching. States and governments have the duty to base their laws of right and wrong on what the Gospel teaches is right and wrong. Actually, the government's true obligation is to be at the service of Christ in happy families - to do for the family what the family cannot do for itself - not to turn family life into a hell on earth by reckless and unlawful intrusion. Governments must safeguard the sanctity of the family, not destroy it.
Lastly, the existence of the Children's "Rights" Movement shows what a fraud is our modern "democracy" which claims that the "people" have the right and competence to elect their own leaders, while simultaneously claiming these same "people" have neither the right nor competence to raise their own children. Even men with no religion can clearly see that a nation who teaches its children to have disrespect for parents and fosters breakdown of the family is on the sure road to self-destruction.