Exploiting Children and Undermining Parental Rights: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

aul_logo.jpgConsider Elizabeth, a twelve year old girl living in Pennsylvania, a state which has enacted a number of common-sense and protective regulations on abortion.  With parental consent and other requirements within her state, one would believe that Elizabeth is protected from the dangers inherent in abortion.  However, if the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is ratified, under international law, these protections would be imperiled.  Elizabeth’s parents would no longer be able to protect her.  They would not be permitted to inculcate her with their moral and religious beliefs regarding sexuality; instead, she would be encouraged to make her own “choice” after being exposed to mass media, popular culture, and instructional programs allegedly designed to promote her social and moral well-being.  If she were to consider an abortion, her parents would not be entitled to receive any information about it because to do so would violate her “right to privacy.”  Moreover, unfettered and direct access to contraception — without the “inconvenience” of involving her parents — would also be her “right.” Read

Read  

Review of “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts” Part III

william_e_may.jpgHere I examine Charles J. Reid, Jr’s “Marriage: Its Relationship to Religion, Law, and the State,” Douglas Laycock’s “Afterword,” and offer final comments.

I summarized pp. 157-176 of Reid’s chapter in Part I of this review; in them he showed that traditionally in Western civilization and particularly in Anglo-American history marriage was regarded as “a divine institution.” Here I focus on the section “Marriage and the State” (176-187) and on his “Conclusion” (187-188).

Read

Read  

Crystallizing our Fears: The Catholic Church and the Future Struggle for Marriage

I recall sitting at a breakfast table at a large pro-life banquet years ago with Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago. Ten to fifteen times over the course of the meal, guests came over, with the same introduction: “Don’t want to disturb your breakfast, Your Eminence, just wanted to thank you for being here and tell you …..”  Near the end of the “meal,” I noticed the Cardinal hadn’t even picked up his fork and I mentioned this. “I always eat before I come,” he replied, (and here, I’m paraphrasing, but accurately) because it’s so important to every person who comes to speak to me that I give them my full attention, and reply personally and kindly. If I don’t, they’ll leave this banquet —  this maybe one  opportunity to speak to a bishop directly — believing that ‘the Church’ doesn’t care about them.” Read

Read