Dr. Stephen Baskerville in Amsterdam at the 5th World Congress of Families
Dr. Baskerville presents a compelling argument for a paradigm shift globally to recognize the role of both fit parents in children's lives and a departure from the current trajectory toward the growing welfare state in western civilization.
By now the Committee on the Rights of the Child (“Committee”), which is charged with overseeing the implementation of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), has made so many exaggerated claims of authority that they can’t even shock us anymore. Well, until they do.
Last month the Committee issued its review of CRC implementation by the Holy See, the political entity of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church. While the extreme leftist agend of the Committee has never been much of a secret, it is on display at its most egregious in this “Concluding Observations” report.
The key issues of “concern” for the Committee were as one might expect: abortion, teen sexuality, homosexuality (and homosexual marriage), corporal punishment (spanking), and parental rights. According to Catholic Church doctrine, abortion is the murder of an unborn child; sex is intended only within the confines of marriage; homosexual activity or lifestyle is a sin; a moderate spanking is – or can be - a part of godly discipline; and parents have the ultimate God-given responsibility for their children.
But the Committee disagrees on all points. What’s more, they communicated the expectation that the Catholic Church must change its stance on all of these topics to comply with the Convention. In so doing, the Committee placed its own opinion above the Scriptures, traditions, and religious convictions of the Catholic Church.
On the issue of sexuality, the Committee calls on the Holy See “to support efforts at [the] international level for the decriminalization of homosexuality,” and to “recognize the diversity of family settings” (which is code for granting legitimacy to homosexual unions). It also demands that the Holy See use its influence to “overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality,” while spreading “information on the harm [of] early marriage.” But the support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle is in direct conflict with Catholic theology, as is the promotion of sexual intimacy (homo- or hetero-) outside of marriage.
No problem, says the Committee. The Church should simply grant “the Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations.” Both Canon Law and the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture are specifically mentioned in the report as among the “internal laws” that should be changed to comply with the Convention. (Paragraph 12: “[T]he Committee regrets that the same approach has not been followed in relation to its internal laws, including Canon Law.” Paragraph 40(d): “[E]nsure that an interpretation of Scripture as not condoning corporal punishment is reflected in Church teaching and other activities and incorporated into all theological education and training.”)
To their credit, “the Holy See still does not consider corporal punishment as being prohibited by the Convention,” likely because no provision of the Convention says otherwise, and because only 25 of the 192 states parties to the Convention have laws against modest spankings in the home as a form of discipline (most of which adopted these laws in response to the browbeating of the Committee). Yet the Committee not only dismisses the view of the Holy See, but also attempts to dictate to the Catholic Church how its Scriptures should be interpreted.
This adds frightful undertones to its admonition as “The Committee…reminds the Holy See that by ratifying the Convention, it has committed itself to implementing the Convention…through individuals and institutions placed under its authority,” and that they must “ensure the Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations.” In essence, the U.N. claims the Holy See has an obligation to urge priests and teachers to follow the tenets of this Committee rather than the doctrines of the Scriptures.
The Committee’s interpretation of the Convention has never even been sanctioned by the nations of the U.N., yet now it ranks higher in the Catholic Church than “the Word of God?” And just to give it teeth, the Committee urges the Holy See to “ratify the core human rights instruments to which it is not yet a party, namely the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure….” (i.e. a complaint mechanism).
Also to their credit, the Holy See holds “that civil authorities should intervene in the family setting only in cases where a proven abuse has been committed in order not to interfere with the duties and rights of parents.” Again the Committee takes issue, claiming “that prerogatives of the parents should in no way undermine children’s right to be protected from abuse and neglect.” But this is not an either…or, and we are not talking about prerogatives. We are talking about the right of parents to make decisions for their own children, absent abuse or neglect. Innocent parents and their children share a right to familial privacy and integrity – something the Committee apparently denies.
The United States Supreme Court once wrote that “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”Parham v. J.R. 442 U.S. 584 (1979). Yet that is the very notion being set forth by this over-reaching U.N. Committee.
Proponents of U.N. Human Rights treaties in the U.S. Senate would have us believe that these conventions do not bind American law or limit U.S. sovereignty. But the Committee responsible for overseeing implementation of this treaty holds a very different view.
In its defense of parental rights, the Holy See has expressed concern that Article 12 of the Convention, on the right of the child to express their views in all matters affecting them, and to have their views given due weight, “undermin[es] the rights and duties of parents,” a concern which we share. This vague “right” can easily be used by government actors to override the decisions of any parent anytime their child disagrees with said decision. But the Committee asserts “that ensuring this right is a legal obligation under the Convention, which leaves no leeway for the discretion of the States parties.” (emphasis added)
It only makes sense, if the Committee’s view supersedes the text of the Convention ratified by 192 nations, the opinion of the Holy See, and even the foundational scriptures of the Catholic Church, that it would “leave no leeway for the discretion” of the United States, either.
Which is one more powerful reason to reject this and any similar treaty.
Fortunately, the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution will de-authorize the Senate and the President from ever ratifying any treaty that, like the CRC, would pose a threat to the right of innocent parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children in accordance with their own conscience and religious belief. This should be very welcome news for anyone who believes their religious tenets – regardless of which faith they hold – should not be held captive by an 18-member panel of “experts” on “child rights.”
If you have not already done so, please sign the petition now atparentalrights.org/petition to promote the adoption of the Parental Rights Amendment. You can also support our cause to protect religious liberty and parental rights with your donation at parentalrights.org/donate. Finally, you can take an active part in our efforts by signing the up at parentalrights.org/volunteer.
The more authority the U.N. seeks to grab from parents and pro-family institutions, the more important it is that we all stand together. Only then can we preserve our freedoms for the next generation.
Director of Communications & Research
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS ON THE JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATEIN CRIMINAL MATTERS
In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.
It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters.
In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.
With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:
1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over:
a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;
b) crimes referred to:
- in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;
- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;
when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;
c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited.
2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.
3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”:
a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.
b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See.
c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;
d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority.
4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws.
5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.
6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force.
This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013.
Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.
© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Leonard Henderson at AFR News -
Subject: Re: On exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless wrongdoing and a plan of action to achieve legislated judicial reformDate: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:39:36 -0500From: Richard Cordero To: *ABSTRACT* of *Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing*:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting and a Plan of Action to Achieve Legislated Judicial Reform Based on Transparency, Accountability, Discipline by Citizen Boards, and Liability of Judges and Judiciaries to Their Victims by *Dr. Richa... more »
Delaware Family Court has been selected as one of only four court systems nationwide to be a part of a U.S. Department of Justice two-year pilot program to evaluate what works best in child custody and visitation cases.
unhappygrammy at Grandparents blog-Dedicated to Austin and Isabella -
Delaware Family Court in US pilot seeking custody alternatives | The News Journal | delawareonline.com
Today we celebrate and congratulate former ACFC president Dr. Stephen Baskerville on his marriage. Stephen's book '...
Posted by American Coalition for Fathers and Children - ACFC on Saturday, January 11, 2014
I will be speaking to the annual meeting of the Arkansas BarAssociation in Hot Springs, Arkansas, on Wednesday, June 9,...
Posted by Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family on Sunday, June 6, 2010