Fighting for the family.
A professor of law at Harvard, Dr Glendon has long tracked and documented alarming manifestations of the culture of death. She is the author of numerous books including Abortion and Divorce in Western Law and Rights Talk. Her most recent treatise, A Nation Under Lawyers, analyzes the consequences for democracy of entrusting crucial roles to legally trained minds.
Prof. Glendon's clear-sightedness has not gone unnoticed by the Vatican. In 1994 Pope John Paul II appointed her to the newly created Pontifical Academy of Social Science. In 1995, she headed the 22-member delegation of the Holy See to the Fourth U.N. women's conference in Beijing. Her previous experience with the U.N. included being elected president of the UNESCO-sponsored International Association of Legal Science in 1991. This article was originally presented at the Second World Meeting of the Holy Father with Families (Rio de Janeiro, Oct 1-3, 1997), and is here reprinted with the author's slight revisions and permission. Subheadings are ours.
International organizations and the defense of the family.
The more one reflects on the topic "international organizations and the defense of the family," the more puzzles seem to be packed into the one little word "and." On one side of the conjunction we have families, the oldest groups of human society. On the other, we have huge modern organizations that are remote from everyday life. It is not at all clear what either should have to do with the other.
In fact, it is only within the past thirty years or so that there has been much of a connection between international organizations and family life. Fifty years ago, the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed as a fundamental human right that the family is entitled to protection from society and the state. (1) But there is no evidence in the historical background of the Declaration that the drafters expected the U.N. itself to play much of a role in protecting the family - except insofar as families would benefit from the humanitarian activities of agencies like the World Health Organization and the U.N. Children's Fund.
Gradually, however, the U.N. grew in size and ambition. Its 25 specialized agencies are now surrounded by large international lobbying associations, many concerned in various ways with the family. But it is still far from obvious how institutions at that level can best assist families. In fact, the current activities of many international organizations often cause one to wonder whether the family needs to be defended by them or protected against them!
Families are affected
What is beyond question these days is that more and more families are being affected for good or ill by the operations of various sorts of distant international actors. Sometimes these effects are direct and intentional - as with the services provided by the Catholic Church through over 300,000 educational, health care, social welfare, and relief agencies that serve mainly the poorest families in the world. Sometimes, the effects of international organizations on the family are incidental - as when a corporation moves its operations, creating jobs in one country and destroying them in another. And sometimes these effects are intentional but indirect - as when population control organizations set out to influence the public policies that in turn affect how social services are provided to families. The tiny conjunction "and" in my title, therefore, covers an extremely complex web of relationships, some beneficial to families, some harmful, and some whose effects are mixed, or difficult to discern.
What one would most like to know about all this, of course, is how can the benefits be maximized while minimizing the harms? The person who can figure that out will no doubt deserve a Nobel prize. But at present our knowledge about such matters is still quite limited. What I would like to focus upon today are the family-related activities of just one group of organizations: the United Nations and its affiliates. Specifically, I wish to call attention to a surprising trend that is gathering momentum as the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approaches. This development is nothing less than a many-sided attack on the family protection principles enshrined in the Declaration. Though these attacks fly the flags of various liberation movements, I will suggest they also represent bids for unprecedented forms of social control. If they are not resisted, we will soon see the family not only ousted from its position as the subject of human rights protection, but treated as an obstacle to human rights!
I. The Vision of the 1948 Declaration: The Family as a Subject of Human Rights Protection
To see how this curious turn of events came about, let us begin at the beginning. The first important manifestation of interest in the family by an international organization was unambiguously friendly. It took place in Bogota, Colombia, where the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man was issued in 1948. The preparatory work for that remarkable document was one of the principal influences on the family-related provisions of the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was approved in Paris later that year.
Reading those two documents today, one is struck by their pervasive concern for the family. Both declarations announce that the family is the fundamental unit of society; that everyone has the right to marry and establish a family; that the home is inviolable; that a worker is entitled to a standard of living suitable for himself and his family; and that the family in general, and motherhood and childhood in particular, are entitled to the protection of society and the state. (2) The U.N. Declaration provides, in addition, for spousal equality, and for the prior right of parents to choose the education of their children. (3)
Why such concern?
It is worth reflecting upon why the drafters of these post-World War II human rights documents lavished so much attention on the family. After all, the famous 18th century charters, the U.S. Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, had nothing to say about the subject. The explanation seems to be that the 1948 drafters were using 20th century national constitutions, to some extent, as models. There are strong similarities between the treatment of the family in the two declarations and the constitutions of several continental European and Latin American countries. (4)
But that just pushes the inquiry back a step. Why did so many countries decide in the early 20th century to add protection of the family to their lists of traditional political and civil rights? That development can be traced primarily to the influence of Christian Social and Christian Democratic political parties, whose family policies in turn were inspired by the social encyclicals of the Catholic Church. Though no one highlighted it at the time, a common set of ideas about family, state, and society thus passed from Christian social teaching via ordinary politics into national law, eventually finding their way into the Bogota and U.N. Declarations. The reception of these ideas in the U.N. drafting process must have been facilitated by the fact that prominent Christians, particularly philosopher Jacques Maritain and Lebanese diplomat Charles Malik, were among the main architects of the U.N. human rights project.
Emphasis on rights
Another connection between the 1948 Declarations and certain national constitutions bears importantly on their treatment of the family. The two international declarations belong, in form and spirit, to a group of postwar rights instruments that are neither libertarian nor collectivist in philosophy. They are grounded, rather, in a common set of assumptions about man and society that one might call dignitarian.
The Bogota and U.N. declarations provide in almost identical language that all men and women are born free and equal in dignity and rights; that human beings are endowed with reason and conscience, and that they should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (5) Both documents treat the bearer of individual rights, not as a self-sufficient monad, but as a person situated in community and family relationships. The U.N. Declaration, for example, provides that everyone has duties to the "community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible." (6)
With regard to the role of international organizations in protecting the family, it is interesting that the history of the 1948 declarations is silent on how their family-related provisions should be carried into effect. All indications are that the drafters regarded family protection as a task to be carried out by institutions closer to families themselves. The principle of subsidiarity seems implicit in Article 16 of the U.N. Declaration which provides that: "The family...is entitled to protection by society [as well as] the state." Beyond affirming a small core of fundamental principles which public and private institutions were expected to observe, the U.N.'s involvement with families in its early years was confined mainly to providing humanitarian assistance.
As the years went by, however, the U.N. grew into an elaborate bureaucracy, employing over 50,000 international civil servants. Some of the newer U.N. agencies, such as the Population Fund and the Committee on the Status of Women, developed close working relationships with a variety of special interest lobbies, some of which, unfortunately, wanted to protect the family as much as wolves want to protect little lambs. Gradually, some U.N. bodies became more intent on managing the family than in providing humanitarian assistance to it. Thus, efforts to oust the family as a subject of human rights protection were launched quietly inside the U.N., many years before the public became aware of what was happening.
II. The Assault on the Family: The Family as Obstacle
To understand why and how the family protection principle came under attack in the U.N., let us fast-forward to 1995 when the assault on the family came boldly out into the open. Early that year, the U. N. Secretariat for the International Year of the Family issued a booklet stating that:
The basic principle of social organization is the human rights of individuals, which have been set forth in international instruments of human rights. (7)
That idea sounds innocent enough. But still, one might wonder how it fits with the 1948 Declaration which provides that the family is the basic unit of society. The U.N. Secretariat anticipated this question. It is true, they admitted, that "several human rights documents" refer to the family as the basic social unit, and that they guarantee protection and assistance to the family, but "The power of the family is and should be limited by the basic human rights of its individual members. The protection and assistance accorded to the family must safeguard these rights."
That proposition, too, seems unobjectionable if it simply means that no rights, including the rights of the family, are unlimited. But, together with other recent U.N. developments, the 1995 guidelines begin to look very much like part of a deliberate effort to create a false opposition between the individual and the family, to insert the state between children and parents, and to undermine the special protections that so many countries have given to marriage, motherhood and the family. Consider, for example, the subtle erosion of the moral authority of parents in the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. (8) In November 1995, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child angrily attacked the Holy See for raising exactly those concerns in its reservations to the Children's Rights Convention. (9) Since all these documents were issued by the U.N. itself, it appeared that the fox was in the chicken coop.
Beijing feminists attack
All doubts on that score were removed by the U.N.'s Women's Conference that took place in Beijing in September 1995. (10) When I first read the draft conference document prepared by the U.N. Committee on the Status of Women, I could hardly believe my eyes. How was it possible that the proposed program of action for a women's conference barely mentioned marriage, motherhood, or family life? And that when marriage and family life - and even religion - were mentioned, they were presented mainly as sources of oppression, or obstacles to women's progress? The explanation is that the U.N. Committee on the Status of Women had become, to a great extent, the tool of special interest groups promoting an elitist brand of feminism that was already passe in the countries where it originated-a feminism that had alienated most women through its inattention to the real life problems of work and family, its hostility to men, and its shameful indifference to the welfare of children. (11)
In the Beijing negotiations, these oldline feminist attacks on the family were combined with efforts to promote a notion of more recent vintage: the idea that the family - and sexual identity - are just arbitrary categories, socially constructed, and infinitely malleable. At the Beijing conference itself, it was surprisingly, the European Union, negotiating as a bloc, that took the lead in this two-pronged effort to "deconstruct" the family and to remove every positive reference to marriage, motherhood, the family, parental rights, and religion from the conference documents.
I say "surprisingly" because the very language the European Union delegates were seeking to remove from the Beijing documents was central to most of their own national constitutions! It was a sorry sight to see women from Spain, Italy, France, Germany, and Ireland trampling upon these hard-won protections! And sadder still to see delegates of many developing countries stand by in silence as matters of vital concern to their own fellow citizens were subordinated to the agendas of first-world interest groups.
Freedom and equality
When these delegates were asked why they were undermining the principle of family protection at a time when families are undergoing exceptional stress in every part of the world, their answers were typically framed in terms of a concept of freedom that confuses liberty with license, and a strictly formal concept of equality that ignores everything we know about human development. They argued that the family cannot be permitted to stand in the way of women's and children's individual rights. And that, in any event, the family has been too narrowly defined, so as to unfairly prefer heterosexual marriage over non-marital cohabitation and same-sex unions.
These simplistic arguments might have led to a fruitful discussion of the ways in which society can respond to the immediate needs of persons in broken and dysfunctional families without undermining the fragile structures that are most conducive to human flourishing over the long run. They might have led to an exploration of how homosexuals can be protected from unjust discrimination, without undermining the preferences that most societies accord to married, child-raising couples.
Power and interest
The dominant groups at Cairo and Beijing, however, were not interesting in having such discussions. For the assault on the family, though conducted in the name of freedom and equality, was also about power and interest. Much of the leadership and financial support for anti-family initiatives comes from persons who are interested less in the rights of women, the plight of children, or fairness to homosexuals, than in what they perceive as a threat to their way of life arising from overpopulation. They are seeking, not liberation in general, but social control for themselves.
Their less obvious motives can be discerned in the strange new rights they propose - rights which on close examination often turn out to be rights for the privileged few but duties for the less fortunate.
The so-called "reproductive rights," for example, may represent autonomy for some women, but the term is all too often a cover story for efforts to control the family size of the poor by any means possible.
Then there is the emerging "right to die" which may satisfy the desire of some affluent people to feel that they are "in control" until the very end. But who can doubt that it portends a "duty to die" for those who are sick, helpless, voiceless, and unable to afford medical care?
As for "sexual rights," it does not seem fanciful to regard them as heralding a modern version of bread and circuses - a distraction from the human quest for genuine freedom and economic justice.
The extent to which international initiatives conducted in the name of women and children are really directed against poor families can be discerned in pressures to redirect social services from humanitarian assistance toward population control. Why is it that so many organizations, countries and "philanthropists" will give millions for "reproductive services", but pennies for maternal and infant nutrition, clean water, primary health care, or prevention and treatment of tropical diseases? (12)
Why is so little attention being paid, for example, to the alarming resurgence of malaria which now sickens as many as half a billion people, and kills 2.7 million people a year, most of them in the developing countries? (13) And why do those who are concerned about population focus on controlling women's reproductive systems, rather than on the two factors which are known to correlate best with population stabilization: education of women and economic development?
It is hard to resist the sad conclusion that the agendas of many international organizations, and the foreign policies of many nations, are unduly influenced by those who, when they look at the families of the poor, see only a threat to their own level of consumption, a menace to the environment, and a portent of social unrest. It is hard to resist the further inference that they want to solve these problems "on the cheap."
The main source of all the woes of the world, in the view of groups like the Planned Parenthood Federation, is over-population. Their main solution is not to alleviate poverty, but to eliminate poor people. Their motives can be discerned in the iron triangle of exclusion they are constructing at the national level in many affluent countries: they are excluding new life through abortion and sterilization; they are barring the door against the stranger through restrictive immigration policies; and they are turning their backs on the poor through cutbacks in family assistance programs.
It is this shameful agenda that silently links the abortion rights movement, with anti-immigration movements in affluent countries, and even with certain parts of the environmental movement. (14) It is this same agenda that hides behind the skirts of the women's movement, but is no friend of women. It is this same agenda that has found a foothold in all too many U.N. agencies, (15) that has crept into the foreign policy of all too many affluent nations, and that all too many delegates brought to recent U.N. conferences.
In one sense, the current attacks on the family represent a new version of a story that is as old as politics itself. Those who seek power have always known that the more that individuals can be detached from families and other mediating groups, the more easily they can be subjugated, and their allegiances shifted to the state, the party, or the charismatic leader. Contemporary movements to "deconstruct" and delegitimate the family thus have implications for human freedom far different from those imagined by hardline feminists and homosexual activists naive enough to believe they would be better off without strong families and vibrant religious groups.
What makes our current situation historically novel is that the attacks on the family are so diffuse. They cannot be identified with a particular nation, or a single group, or a common ideology. Their various manifestations have little in common - apart from the promotion of the diverse interests of a bureaucratic-managerial-therapeutic class united by little more than individualism, and a desire to consolidate the unprecedented prosperity that came their way in the latter half of the 20th century. As an administrator of the U.N.'s Development Program recently recognized, "An emerging global elite, mostly urban-based and interconnected in a variety of ways, is amassing great wealth and power, while more than half of humanity is left out." (16)
Not only is the disparity in wealth increasing, but the affluent and the poor increasingly live in separate worlds. (17) Members of the new class of mobile, semi-educated knowledge workers often have more in common with their counterparts in other countries than with the poor in their own societies. (18) Those who inhabit governmental agencies, corporations, universities, the professions, the mass media, and social service agencies increasingly participate in an international common culture.
At this point, I should make clear that I am not postulating some world-wide conspiracy. but rather a much more complex social phenomenon in which diverse people for different reasons pursue similar policies. Their common direction arises less from concerted action, than from unconscious parallelism. When their desires and interests prompt them to attack the principle of family protection, it is not so much that they are against the family, as determined not to let the family, religion, or any other institution stand in the way of what they want.
It is easy to see why well-financed, new-class interest groups take the more controversial parts of their agendas to international organizations like the U.N. and the European Court of Human Rights. (19) In their home countries, they shun the ordinary political processes that would expose their agendas to the judgment of their fellow citizens. They seek instead to influence administrative agencies, or to obtain unappealable rulings from unelected constitutional courts. No wonder, then, that they were quick to seize new opportunities to operate even further from public scrutiny and democratic accountability.
Organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation have made every effort to turn U.N. conferences into off-shore manufacturing sites for "international standards," which can be used to influence not only U.N. agencies, but the foreign and domestic policies of member states. In this way, a controversial agenda can affect the lives of millions of people without ever being being subjected to the test of the ballot box. Like the pharisees in Matthew's Gospel, "They bind up heavy loads for others to carry, yet lift not a finger to help them."
In sum, then, the years between 1948 and 1995 saw a steady rise in the power of diverse movements that seek to treat the family (and religion) as obstacles to human rights, rather than as subjects of human rights protection. The reasons, in some cases, are ideological; but often ideology merely serves as a disguise for power and interest. The net effect, however, by the end of 1995, was that the family-friendly principles of the great post-World War II Declarations were in serious danger of being suppressed or distorted beyond recognition. This brings us to the question of:
III. What is to be Done?
Many men and women of good will, offended by these developments and discouraged generally by the failure of the United Nations to live up to its early promise, believe that pro-family groups should have nothing further to do with the U.N. But there are several theological and prudential reasons why that option is problematic for Catholics.
Rejection or cooperation
In the first place, Catholic Christianity requires us to be active in the world. We are called, each of us with our different gifts, to be the salt of the earth, the leaven in the social loaf, workers in the vineyard for the coming of the kingdom.
Secondly, as the Church has often recognized, the United Nations, despite all its flaws, waste, and failures, has accomplished much good, especially in poor countries, and it offers much hope in a world where the nations are faced with many challenges that cross national boundaries. (20) In Familiaris Consortio, the Holy Father specifically told families that their social and political role has been "extended in a completely new way" because of "the worldwide dimension of various social questions" (48).
That role, he said, now involves "cooperating for a new international order," participating "in the authentically human growth of society and its institutions, and supporting in various ways the associations specifically devoted to international issues." (FC, 48).
Thirdly, as the Holy See's activity in the U.N. has shown, even a few voices can make a difference when they speak the truth and call good and evil by name. Much of the best language on social justice in recent U.N. documents is there because the Holy See proposed or defended it. Thanks to the Holy See, the U.N. remains committed to the principle that abortion is never to be promoted as a means of birth control. Even at Beijing, when greatly outnumbered, the Holy See was able to save family protection language by shining the spotlight into those proceedings. When the European Union fought against all positive references to the family, religion, and parental authority, the Holy See sent a press release to the major European newspapers asking why Europe's representatives were taking positions contrary to their own constitutions and their own governments' family policies. We asked whether these delegates really represented official policy or public opinion in their home countries. Within 24 hours, questions began to be raised in European parliaments about what their delegates were doing in Beijing. Before another day had passed, the European delegates backed down from these positions and the contested language was saved.
At the end of the Beijing conference, many good religious people still felt that the conference document was so flawed that the Holy See should reject it in its entirety. They urged our delegation to walk away from the conference. But Pope John Paul II instructed us not to take the path of withdrawal. Speaking from the heart of our Catholic theological tradition, he said: "Accept what is good in the document and vigorously denounce what is false and harmful."
Time has already proved the wisdom of this advice. The Istanbul Habitat Conference a year after Beijing saw a stunning defeat for the anti-family coalition. There was another hard-fought battle in which more developing countries joined the positions that the Holy See had defended with few supporters at Beijing. At the end of the day, as one reporter put it:
Despite intense bullying, arm-twisting, and outright blackmail, the developing countries refused to bow before Western pressure for `reproductive health' and ambiguously defined `families.' Instead, representatives of the G-77 mustered the votes to: reaffirm the importance of parental rights; guarantee respect for member states' religious and ethical values; recognize the family [rather than the code-word `families'] as the basic unit of society; and delete all references to `reproductive health' except one which was so phrased that it could not be used to force abortion on the developing world. (21)
Even the U.N. Secretariat for the Year of the Family seems to have had a change of heart, or at least a change of lip service. In 1997, they issued a report very different in tone from the 1995 booklet I quoted earlier. In its official summary of all the family-related provisions from recent U.N. conferences, the Secretariat highlights mainly the provisions that survived due to the efforts of the Holy See! (22)
How effective is the Holy See?
The conclusion seems irresistible that the withdrawal of the Holy See from the U.N. would only serve to give comfort to the agents of the culture of death. The time has come to recognize, however, that the Holy See in the U.N. has too often been like the little Dutch boy who prevented a flood by keeping his finger in the dike.
The time has come to heed the Holy Father's urgent call to families themselves to become "`protagonists' of what is known as `family politics' and assume responsibility for transforming society." (23) The Pontifical Council on the Family recently reiterated this call, reminding us that "the family is not helpless.... Families must associate, organize and build family politics....Through the democratic processes of participation, the family should ensure that the State recognizes its autonomy and rights, and its value as the resilient community of the future." (24)
As a mother and grandmother, I know very well that it is not easy for family members to answer this call. Each of us will have to discern prayerfully what it is that we must contribute. But Pope John Paul II reminds us that there is one thing all families can do, regardless of their situation in life. They can strive to "offer everyone a witness of generous and disinterested dedication to social matters through a `preferential option' for the poor and disadvantaged" (FC, 47). Beyond this, however, he exhorts Christian families "to become actively engaged at every level" in associations that work "for the common good and the good of the family." (25)
Brazil's "city mission program"
In this connection, the Church in Brazil is offering an inspiring example in its "city mission" program. In response to the Holy Father's invitation to make the new millennium a "spring-time of evangelization," Catholic families in Rio de Janeiro and other Brazilian dioceses have begun visiting their neighbors, house by house, seeking to engage them in dialogue about the faith. (26) The idea is that, "if the people do not come to the parish, the parish must go out to the people." Just imagine what might happen if such missions could be replicated in other countries - and combined with a response to the Holy Father's call to become protagonists of family politics! What tremendous grassroots resources could be marshalled toward reasserting control for families themselves over the conditions in which we live, work, and raise our children!
And while I am speaking of untapped resources, I would be remiss if I did not remind this gathering of the Holy Father's insistence on the importance of welcoming the contributions of women in public life and in the life of the Church. In 1995, on the occasion of the Beijing Women's Conference, John Paul II called "all Catholic caring and educational institutions to adopt a concerted and priority strategy directed to girls and young women, especially the poorest, over the coming years." (27) In making that commitment, the Holy Father has entrusted all of us Catholics with responsibility for its fulfillment. To women, he has said, over and over: "I make an appeal to the women of the Church today to assume new forms of leadership in service." (28) To his brother priests, bishops, and to all representatives of the Church, he has said, over and over, "I appeal to all the institutions of the Church to welcome this contribution of women." (29)
Dear sisters and brothers in Christ, let us resolve today to redouble our efforts to be worthy of the confidence the Holy Father has placed in us. Let us join forces, men and women together, as "partners in the mystery of redemption" to resist all efforts to drive wedges between men and women, or to insert bureaucrats between parents and children!
(1) . Universal Declaration, Art. 16 (1948).
(2) . Universal Declaration, Arts. 16 and 25; American Declaration, Arts. 6, 7, 9 and 14.
(3) . Universal Declaration, Arts. 16 and 26.
(4) . E.g., Bolivia 1945 (Art. 133: "Marriage, the family, and motherhood are under the protection of the State"); France 1946 (Preamble: "The nation ensures to the individual and the family the conditions necessary to their development"); Ireland 1937 (Art. 41: "The State recognizes the family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society....The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the family in its constitution and authority...."); Italy 1947 (Art. 29: "The Republic recognizes the rights of the family as a natural social unit based on marriage"); Spain 1945 (Art. 22: "The State recognizes and protects the family as a natural and fundamental institution of society with rights and duties prior and superior to all human positive law"). Similar language is found in the 1947 constitutions of the United States of Brazil and the 1946-47 constitutions of the states of occupied Germany.
(5) . American Declaration, Preamble; U.N. Declaration, Art. 1.
(6) . U.N. Declaration, Art. 29; cf. American Declaration, Preamble.
(7) . U.N. Dept. for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, Secretariat for the International Year of the Family, Indicative Guide for Action on Family Issues (Vienna: United Nations, 1995), par. 74.
(8) . See Bruce C. Hafen and Jonathan O. Hafen, "Abandoning Children to their Autonomy: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child," 37 Harvard International Law Journal 449 (1996), describing how interest groups who had been unsuccessful in national politics turned to the international arena to gain acceptance for their extreme vision of child autonomy. According to an official U.N. publication, "it is generally acknowledged in the international community that the non-governmental organizations had a direct and indirect impact on this Convention that is without parellel in the history of the drafting of international agreements." Doek and Cantwell, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Amsterdam: Nijhoff, 1992), 23-24.
(9) . U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Press Releases of November 16 and 25, 1995, quoted in Matt Daniels, Revolution by Treaty: An Analysis of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (Washington: Free Congress Foundation, 1996), p. 12. This U.N. Report also attacks the Catholic Church for maintaining single-sex schools and a male priesthood!
(10) . For a more detailed description, see Glendon, "What Happened at Beijing," First Things, January, 1996, p. 30.
(11) . See Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, `Feminism is not the Story of my Life': How Today's Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch with the Real Concerns of Women (New York: Doubleday, 1996).
(12) . See Michel Schooyans, "L'Europe et le controle de la population dans le Tiers-Monde," Familia et Vita (Pontifical Council for the Family, 1997), pp. 84-88.
(13) . Ellen Shell, "Resurgence of a Deadly Disease," Atlantic Monthly, August 1997, p. 7.
(14) . For a discussion of the links among population control, women's rights, and environmentalism in the thinking of the U.S. State Department, see Jeffrey Gedmin, "Clinton's Touchy-Feely Foreign Policy," Weekly Standard, May 13, 1996, p.p. 19, 22-23.
(15) . Especially the U.N. Population Fund whose 1997 Report reprints excerpts from a "Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights" issued by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, thus helping to legitimate IPPF's claim that its controversial agenda is backed by "international consensus." State of the World Population 1997.
(16) . Barbara Crossette, "U.N. Survey Finds World Rich-Poor Gap Widening," New York Times, July 15, 1996, p. A3.
(17) . U.N. Development Program, Human Development Report 1996 (Oxford University Press, 1996).
(18) . The late Christopher Lasch wrote extensively on this subject, especially in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York: Norton, 1995). Kenneth Anderson has continued the critique in recent articles, e.g., "Heartless World Revisited," Times Literary Supplement, Sept. 22, 1995.
(19) . A complete survey of recent changes in the role of international organizations with regard to the family would have to include the European Commission and Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. For a penetrating analysis of judicial inroads on family protection in Europe by one of the world's leading family law scholars, see Marie-Therese Meulders-Klein, "Internationalisation des Droits de l'Homme et Evolution du Droit de la Famille: Un Voyage Sans Destination?" in Internationalisation des Droits de l'Homme et Evolution du Droit de la Famille, ed. F. Dekeuwer-Defossez (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1996), pp. 179-213; and "Vie Privee, Vie Familiale et Droits de l'Homme," Rev. Int. Droit Compare (1992), pp. 767-94.
(20) . William F. Murphy, "The United Nations: Why Bother?" The Pilot, September 29, 1995, p. 12. See especially, in this connection, the Holy Father's October 5, 1995 speech to the United Nations.
(21) . Mary Meaney, "Radical Rout," National Review, July 15, 1996.
(22) . Report of the Secretary General of the International Year of the Family (U.N., Geneva, January 6, 1997).
(23) . Familiaris Consortio,44 (1981). See also, the Introduction to the 1983 Charter of the Rights of the Family which calls families "to unite in the defence and promotion of their rights."
(24) . "Un Economia per la Famiglia," L'Osservatore Romano, March 14, 1996, p. 4.
(25) . Familiaris Consortio, 72 (Emphasis added).
(26) . "John Paul in 1997: On the Move" Inside the Vatican, January 1997, p. 15.
(27) . John Paul II, Letter to Mary Ann Glendon and the Holy See Delegation to the Fourth World Conference on Women, August 29, 1995.
(28) . Id.
(29) . Id.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Glendon, Mary Ann|
|Date:||Mar 1, 1998|
|Previous Article:||Will Ontario's Catholic schools survive the next 25 years?|
|Next Article:||Vatican treasures in the United States.|