In a recent debate, an East Coast politician accidentally let the truth seep out. “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions. I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
He subsequently reiterated the point. “Listen, we have a Board of Ed working with the local school boards to determine the curriculum for our schools. You don’t want parents coming in every different school jurisdiction saying, ‘This is what should be taught here’ and, ‘This is what should be taught here.’”
In other words, the state knows more about children’s well-being than their parents.
Children, Parents, and Privacy
On the West Coast, Governor Gavin Newsom of California applied the same standard to an even more critical issue when signing “Assembly Bill 1184” into law.
An official California State website summarizes the bill. It will “prohibit a health care service plan or health insurer from requiring a protected individual, as defined, to obtain the policyholder, primary subscriber or other enrollee’s authorization to receive sensitive services or to submit a claim for sensitive services if the protected individual has the right to consent to care.”
The “sensitive services” include “sexual and reproductive health” and “gender-affirming care.” Thus, insurance companies cannot reveal to policyholders – usually parents – if a child procures an abortion or attempts a so-called sex change.
This forces parents to pay for these treatments that will permanently harm their children – even without their knowledge.
A Dangerous Position
A San Francisco Democrat, Assemblyman David Chiu, drafted the new law. He argued that Obamacare allows children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26. The insurance companies would be violating those children’s privacy by sharing that information with parents. ABC News quoted him. “This violation of privacy has put them in a terrible and, in some instances, an even dangerous position.”
However, nothing in the bill distinguishes between children who have reached legal adulthood and those who have not. It makes no difference if the child is age twelve or twenty-five. Parents are left “outside the loop.”
All of these politicians’ sentiments and actions are in line with long-standing Marxist goals.
Duke Paul of Oldenburg summarized those goals in a 2017 conference.
“The destruction of the family is a key goal of the communist movement. The first sexual revolution was launched by Vladimir Lenin, with laws legalizing divorce (1918), abortion (1920) and euthanasia (1922). Lenin eradicated the old laws regarding sexual relations, effectively legalizing homosexual activity within Russia.
“In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Friedrich Engels asserts that in the monogamous family lies the root of all evil, namely, the idea of ‘mine’ (my wife, my husband), which gives rise to the private property of the means of production (capitalism) and, later, to the private property of authority (the state). Engels proposes promiscuous sexual intercourse, and even incest, as a means of breaking the idea of family based on ‘consanguinity,’ turning it instead into a ‘pairing family,’ which would usher mankind into the ‘next higher plane of society.’”
For the Marxist, the family is an obstruction to creating an egalitarian “workers’ paradise.” While Messrs. McAuliffe and Newsom may not be declared Marxists, the effect is the same. Karl Marx would applaud their leadership.
The Catholic Family
Nothing could be further from the Catholic conception of the family.
Catholic teachings on the family have roots founded on both natural law and the Ten Commandments. The Fourth Commandment describes the duties of children toward parents in the well-known “Honor your father and your mother.” (See Deuteronomy 5:16.) The Baltimore Catechism #3 (1893) expands, “We are commanded by the fourth Commandment to honor, love, and obey our parents in all that is not sin.”
The duties of parents toward children are based on natural law. Saint Thomas Aquinas states, “For a child is by nature part of its father: thus, at first, it is not distinct from its parents as to its body, so long as it is enfolded within its mother’s womb; and later on after birth, and before it has the use of its free-will, it is enfolded in the care of its parents, which is like a spiritual womb… according to the natural law, a son, before coming to the use of reason, is under his father’s care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parents’ custody, or anything done to it against its parents’ wish.”
That “father’s care” extends to all aspects of the child’s physical and moral well-being.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907-1912) explains the development of the family in the New Testament. “Christ not only restored the family to its original type as something holy, permanent, and monogamous, but raised the contract from which it springs to the dignity of a sacrament, and thus placed the family itself upon the plane of the supernatural. The family is holy inasmuch as it is to co-operate with God by procreating children who are destined to be the adopted children of God, and by instructing them for His kingdom. The union between husband and wife is to last until death (Matthew 19:6 sq.; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11; 1 Corinthians 7:10). That this is the highest form of the conjugal union, and the best arrangement for the welfare both of the family and of society….”
Unjust and Inaccurate Assumptions
Thus, Assemblyman Chiu went against the nature of the family when he referred to a child’s “dangerous position” should the vital information become known to parents. The parents are the primary educators of their children.
Indeed, there are abusive parents, and the state has legitimate recourse to protect children in such desperate situations. Such parents are infinitesimally small when compared to those who love and care for their children. To assume that the state should raise all children because the abusive few is an injustice to caring parents and their children.
A parent once confronted a liberal public official, declaring that, “You cannot love my child as much as I do.” The official replied, “Yes, I can!” “Oh?” replied the parent, “If you love them so much, name them.” The official was left sheepishly without reply.
Leftist politicians would do well to take this little story to heart.
Photo Credit: © William — stock.adobe.com