CIVILIZATION WITHOUT A MOTHER AND A FATHER
GENDER MARSH THROUGH INSTITUTIONS
The cultural gender already appeared in a debate of the UNO in the beginning of the 90s of the last century. However, it did not have a binding character. Only a conference in Beijing about women in 1995 changed this state of things. In a Beijing Report the perspective of the cultural gender becomes the essence of the document and equal rights of the cultural gender is the main purpose of realization.
UNO in the gender network
How essential meaning was given to the gender ideology in this document, is proved by the statistics of used terminology in it. The term ‘cultural gender’ appears in the report 272 times, the expression ‘men and women’ – 39 times, ‘mother’ or ‘motherhood’ – 27 times. Since this moment the gender ideology started its march through institutions. But the process of ‘familiarizing’ the western civilization with the gender ideology had already started in the 60s of the last century. Radical feminist and homosexual movements were playing a bigger and bigger role in international institutions and started making a pressure on intergovernmental processes. The prestigious American Psychiatric Society dominated by gender ideologists eliminated homosexuality from a list of illnesses. The gender revolution made a universal deconstruction of the reality included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the language, terminology describing it, such as mother, father, motherhood, fatherhood, disappeared from documents in favor of terminology connected with the cultural gender (perspective of cultural gender, equal rights of cultural gender, the role of cultural gender, identity of cultural gender, analysis of cultural gender, neutrality of cultural gender, physicality of cultural gender, discrimination of cultural gender, parity, norms, gap, entitlement, dimension, division, stereotypes, issues, principles, varieties, etc.). Under the guise of equal rights, liquidation of discrimination with using the international institutions of the global management and language manipulation, the majority of the society is forced to accept the demands of the minority. Hence there is only one step to totalitarianism - because imposing gender contents on documents will concern all citizens. Language is a key element in the gender march through institutions. It causes gradual changing the social awareness and – what is implies here – the chaos of terms deconstructing the universal reality.
In 1979 when gender ideology was already making a pressure on western cultures in the accepted Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention which, as it would seem, should care more about motherhood, the word ‘mother’ does not appear at all. In the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRS) from 1989 the word ‘mother’ appears only once. What is interesting, in no treaty devoted to the human rights there is not the word ‘father’ (M. A. Peeters ‘Politics of globalization ideologists against the family’).
Parent A and parent B
What once used to mean the grammatical gender (masculine, feminine and neutral), was adjusted by the postmodern intelligence to the new ‘religion’, called cultural gender. Gender among coryphées of this ideology is not biologically defined any longer as the masculine or feminine gender, but culturally, formed in the process of education and socialization. We are not born as women and men but we decide about our sexes ourselves. Gender ideology has its beginnings from feminist and homosexual movements which were initially aiming at having equal rights in a social sense, by introducing cultural gender into a political discourse. It negated Judeo-Christian civilization, based on a marriage of a woman and a man, femininity, masculinity and heterosexuality, treating them as a stereotype leading to discrimination. In order to prevent it, gender ideologists started deconstruction of culture. The man puts himself in the place of God. He decides about his sex and social roles himself. He creates egoistic and hedonistic culture. Its purpose are changes o awareness, social and political actions of the international range. And its result are educational preschool and school curriculums which are to create a new man, with elimination of the influence of the family on creating personality of a child, with legal consequences, for example, punishing parents for not sending their children to classes of sexual education at school, where they are perverted from the age of 4 on the basis of the WHO program. In headings of official documents there are terms deconstructing the family: there is not a mother or a father, but parent A and parent B; there is not a wife or a husband but partners. IN many countries single-sex couples are becoming ’families’ which adopt a child or bringing up a partner’s child. And help for the country or an institution depends on realization of gender documents of UNO or EU (for example, a kindergarten of equal rights in Poland or help to poor countries of Africa), that is, on their introducing a restrictive anti-birth policy (abortion and contraceptive policy).
Gender ideology and the Church
A letter of bishops on Sunday of the Holy Family, devoted to the defence of the family against the gender ideology echoed in media. ‘We cannot keep silent towards attempts of introducing the ideology which destroys Christian anthropology and replaces it with deeply destructive utopias which destroy not only a single man but also the whole society’ – write Polish bishops. They note the destructive elements of the ideology, the attack on the family through the change in terminology of the marriage and family, introducing curriculums into schools, which bring a danger to the identity of the youngest generation and sexualization of children. Bishops emphasize that this ideology is introduced into Poland through the back door ‘without the awareness of the society and consent of Poles’. It has a place in media, education, health service, cultural-educational institutions, non-governmental organizations and universities.
The danger of the gender ideology had already been mentioned in 2012 by Benedict XVI who emphasized that the problem is universal, and does not concern only one’s own environment, ‘Catholic’ environment. The Pope stated: ‘A man and a woman as the reality of creation, as the nature of the human being do not exist anymore. The man questions his nature. He is only a spirit and a will now. (…) If, however, there is not a duality of a man and a woman as a data resulting from creation, then there is no longer the family, as something defined in the beginning by creation. But in this case, also offspring lost its place which had had so far and his special dignity’.
A great rabbi of France Gilles Bernheim shows in his treaty that the attack on the family consisting of a father, mother and a child, to which we are exposed, reaches much deeper dimension. If we have seen the causes of the crisis in an incorrect way of understanding the essence of human freedom, not it is becoming clear that the vision of the very existence plays a role here and also of what really means to be the human being.
In the document ‘The truth of human love’ of July 2012 Spanish bishops state that gender ideology leads to culture which does not create life but death. French hierarchs note the ‘organized and fighting invasion of the gender theory, especially in the education sector’. In April 2013 cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, opening a plenary meeting of the Bishops’ Conference in France, pointed that ‘a temptation of rejecting any sexes difference’ is an ideology being at the basis of the act about ‘marriage for everybody’ (despite the explicit attitude of the Church, French National Organization legalized single-sex marriages, giving them a right to adopt children). Also bishops of Slovakia, in their pastoral letter on the First Sunday of Advent 2013 protested against the mass questioning the human nature and attacks on the family which is created by a father, mother and children. Bishops warned against the gender ideology, addressing their words mainly to politicians, parents and people responsible for education to be courageous towards the ideas from the culture of death and not succumb to the pressures of international institutions which demand the over-standard rights for homosexual minorities. The Episcopate of Portugal in the pastoral letter of November 2013 stated that the gender ideology perverts the truth about the human being and human love, and gender lobby had an influence on perversity in Portugal legislation.
In the opinion of archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi from Trest, gender ideologists are making more and more pressure on governments of particular countries, so that they would change their legislation concerning procreation, life and family. In a report presented in January 2013 and elaborated by the International Observatory Centre of the Social Teaching of the Church named Cardinal Van Than pointed that the strongest attack of the gender ideology is directed against traditionally Christian countries of Latin America now. The example is Argentina where during one year in vitro fertilization was legalized, the ‘gender identity’ was introduced and the civil code was modified in such a way that surrogate women would be legal and their ‘bellies to rent’. ‘Where partnership and homosexual relations were legalized, another step was the change in the family law and imposing a model of the so-called new family and completely omitting principles resulting from the natural law’ – emphasizes archbishop Crepaldi.
This is the background in which the voice of Polish bishops echoes loudly. ‘Facing the growing attacks on various spheres of family and social life we feel obliged – bishops write – in order to, on the one hand, express our definite and consistent opinion in the defence of marriage and family, fundamental values which protect them, and, on the other hand, in order to warn others against dangers coming from promoting the new vision’. They note that: Documents are being created which are allegedly aimed at protection, safety and welfare of citizens but which contain strongly destructive elements’. Bishops give an example of the Convention of the European Council opposing violence against women, which ‘although it is devoted to the essential problem of violence against women, promotes the so-called non-stereotypical sexual roles and deeply interferes into educational system, imposing a duty of education and promotion of, among the others, ‘homosexuality and transsexuality’. Bishops also note the increase of social acceptance, including parents’, of the so-called ‘free relationships’, increase in numbers of divorces, lack of openness to the gift of life. Moreover, bishops appeal for using democratic procedures to defend the family, engagement, education. They appeal to everybody not to ‘succumb to the pressures from very few but influential groups which have lots of financial means and in the name of modern upbringing, they are doing experiments on children and young people’.
The dictate of the minority
the discussed social and cultural problems are the result of action planned for several years, which is not only a supporting ideology, but also a political program of the international standard. When the gender definition of sexes becomes a part of legislation, it starts concerning all citizens. A similar situation will be in Poland, if self-awareness of the society concerning the consequences of the gender ideology does not increase. After all, the Convention about preventing and fighting violence against women and domestic violence, signed by Poland on 18 December 2012, and whose purpose was overthrowing stereotypes about sexes, will concern millions of young Poles. In the Sejm there is a project of the so-called equal rights act, submitted by the Democratic Leftist Alliance and Your Party. If it is accepted, it will restrict rights protected constitutionally, among the others, concerning freedom of speech. In the act there is a provision of discrimination prohibition because of the so-called sexual expressiveness and sexual identity. If we do not say the firm NO!, we will see soon what significance it will have, for example, for employers refusing to employ a homosexually-oriented person or in the defence against perverse behaviours in public places.