Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for December, 2009

If anyone is interested in one of the best reads for a pro-lifer, may I suggest:

Architects of the Culture of Death

This book looks at several key figures over the past 150 years who have contributed to building the Culture of Death. I’ll share a few of those written about:

Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey, Alan Guttmacher, Friedrich Nietze, Arthur Schopenhauer.

Click the link to preview the book.

I’ve known one of the authors, Ben Wiker, for four years. He is one of the funniest, most affable, and brilliant fellows I’ve had the pleasure of meeting. He usually speaks at the Summer Conferences at Franciscan University, Steubenville, Ohio. The book is written as an easy read, with no prior knowledge of the subjects or their writings required. We’ll be returning to this book as primary source material.

Read Full Post »

If it seems that Sanger is being pounded here, she is. And for good cause. Margaret Sanger is one of the chief architects of the Culture of Death. Dismantling that culture requires a thorough deconstruction of all that Sanger built, much in the name of science.

Here, Margaret Sanger, architect of the Culture of Death:

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying
… demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism …
[Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the
world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of
others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead
weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the
stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world,
it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying
for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing,
unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born
at all.”

– Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization , 1922. Chapter on “The
Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library
edition.

Here, Jesus of Nazareth on the Criteria by which He will judge Sanger, and the world:

Matthew 25:

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory,
and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.
32 Before him all the nations will be gathered,
and he will separate them one from another,
as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat;
I was thirsty, and you gave me drink;
I was a stranger, and you took me in;
36 naked, and you clothed me;
I was sick, and you visited me;
I was in prison, and you came to me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, saying,
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you;
or thirsty, and give you a drink?
38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in;
or naked, and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’
40 “The King will answer them, ‘Most assuredly I tell you,
inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me
.’
41 Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat;
I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in;
naked, and you didn’t clothe me;
sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
44 “Then they will also answer, saying,
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry,
or thirsty,
or a stranger,
or naked,
or sick, or in prison,
and didn’t help you?’
45 “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most assuredly I tell you,
inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’

46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

No mention of the ‘least of these’ as undeserving of life, of being a “dead weight of human waste”, of “foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism.”

Read Full Post »

Today is the seventh day of the Octave of Christmas.

In today’s Liturgy of the Hours, Office of Readings Pope St. Gregory the Great meditates not just on our human dignity being elevated by becoming members of the Body of Christ in Baptism, but also on our dignity being elevated by sharing in His Nativity, his coming into the world like us, as a baby. He shared our humanity, and through that sharing gave us a share in His divinity.

Had Margaret Sanger grasped that truth, that cornerstone of Christian Anthropology, we would be inhabiting a very different world today. Science cannot blind itself to its crossroads with Christian Anthropology without resulting in unspeakable tragedy, as we have seen again and again.

A sermon of Pope St Leo the Great

The birthday of the Lord is the birthday of peace.

“God’s Son did not disdain to become a baby. Although with the passing of the years he moved from infancy to maturity, and although with the triumph of his passion and resurrection all the actions of humility which he undertook for us were finished, still today’s festival renews for us the holy childhood of Jesus born of the Virgin Mary. In adoring the birth of our Saviour, we find we are celebrating the commencement of our own life, for the birth of Christ is the source of life for Christian folk, and the birthday of the Head is the birthday of the body.

Every individual that is called has his own place, and all the sons of the Church are separated from one another by intervals of time. Nevertheless, just as the entire body of the faithful is born in the font of baptism, crucified with Christ in his passion, raised again in his resurrection, and placed at the Father’s right hand in his ascension, so with Him are they born in this nativity.

For this is true of any believer in whatever part of the world, that once he is reborn in Christ he abandons the old paths of his original nature and passes into a new man by being reborn. He is no longer counted as part of his earthly father’s stock but among the seed of the Saviour, who became the Son of man in order that we might have the power to be the sons of God.

For unless He came down to us in this humiliation, no one could reach his presence by any merits of his own.

The very greatness of the gift conferred demands of us reverence worthy of its splendour. For, as the blessed Apostle teaches, We have received not the spirit of this world but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which are given us by God. That Spirit can in no other way be rightly worshipped, except by offering him that which we received from him.

But in the treasures of the Lord’s bounty what can we find so suitable to the honour of the present feast as the peace which at the Lord’s nativity was first proclaimed by the angel-choir?

For it is that peace which brings forth the sons of God. That peace is the nurse of love and the mother of unity, the rest of the blessed and our eternal home. That peace has the special task of joining to God those whom it removes from the world.

So those who are born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God must offer to the Father the unanimity of peace-loving sons, and all of them, adopted parts of the mystical Body of Christ, must meet in the First-begotten of the new creation. He came to do not his own will but the will of the one who sent him; and so too the Father in his gracious favour has adopted as his heirs not those that are discordant nor those that are unlike him, but those that are one with him in feeling and in affection. Those who are re-modelled after one pattern must have a spirit like the model.

The birthday of the Lord is the birthday of peace: for thus says the Apostle, He is our peace, who made both one; because whether we are Jew or Gentile, through Him we have access in one Spirit to the Father.”

Read Full Post »

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
This is George Grant’s well-written, scholarly work on Sanger’s deadly legacy. It’s offered to the reader in order to show how Margaret Sanger hitched her deadly agenda to the junk science of its day. In the most awful of all outcomes, the deadly legacy has become mainstream, long after the junk science was disproved. In essence, eugenics was used as the Trojan Horse by Sanger and her cohort.

Even though the ‘science’ of eugenics has been disproved, it’s toxic residue lives on in its bastard child, Genetic Counseling. 93% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted today. More on that in another post.

You can download the pdf of this exceptional treatise online for free. Click Here.

Read Full Post »

A commenter in the comboxes believes Margaret Sanger to be misunderstood, and that we would all do well to follow the lead of her disciples at New York University.

Mike Wallace interviewed Margaret Sanger 9/21/57. Watch the video here.

Sanger really starts fidgeting, ducking and weaving, telling lies and conveniently forgetting in the second half of the interview.

She outright lies in the first half, when speaking of the opposition of the Christian Churches to Birth Control in the beginning of her movement.

“At that time (1920′s) there was no opposition as far as the Church was concerned- any Church. It was mainly the law-federal law and state laws that one had to think of.”

In reality, all mainline churches opposed contraception until the Anglicans broke with tradition at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Only then did others follow suit.

Surely Sanger must have remembered how Pope Pius XI wrote the famous Encyclical Castii Connubii (On Christian Marriage) four months after the Lambeth Conference of 1930, wherein he states that the teaching against contraception was “uninterrupted Christian tradition” (see paragraph 56 in the document).

After watching Sanger’s sanitized, Disney version of her motives for pushing birth control, consider what she didn’t say:

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying
… demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism …
[Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the
world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of
others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead
weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the
stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world,
it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying
for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing,
unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born
at all.”


– Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization , 1922. Chapter on “The
Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library
edition.

“Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most
adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and
social problems.
“I think you must agree … that the campaign for birth control is not
merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims
of eugenics … Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the
eugenic educator.
“As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the
unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly
the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the
inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this
matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-
minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be
held up for emulation.
“On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and
discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

– Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.”
Birth Control Review , October 1921, page 5.

“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless
ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose
religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.
Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper
element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their
support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the
procreation of this group should be stopped.”

– Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It
Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth
Control Conference . Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-
12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review , Gothic Press, pages 172
and 174.

“In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the
idea of ‘fit’ and ‘unfit.’ Who is to decide this question? The grosser,
the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be
discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind. But among the
writings of the representative Eugenists [sic], one cannot ignore the
distinct middle-class bias that prevails.”

– Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. “Was Margaret Sanger a
Racist?” Family Planning Perspectives , January-February 1985, page 44.

In fairness to Sanger, Idiot, Imbicile, and Moron were medical diagnostic categories in their day. Also to be fair to Sanger, she dripped with contempt for these people. She had no appreciation for their humanity, and in her hardened heart, could not imagine that the poor might enjoy meaning in the midst of poverty. Nor could she imagine that the children of the poor might rise above the poverty. My parents grew up in tenements in grinding poverty during the great depression. I lived in those same tenements until age 13. Of five children in my family four went to college and graduate school. All live lives of productive contribution to society.

But even the most handicapped among us has great individual value and moral worth. In the most bitter of ironies, it was Margaret Sanger herself who added to societal misery on the same scale she imagined it in other quarters. If as she suggested the handicapped had little to offer, it is all the more certain that Sanger wasted much. A terrible epitaph.

Read Full Post »

The Wall Street Journal reports that Senator Ben Nelson will air a defense of his traitorous vote during tonight’s University of Nebraska Holiday Bowl game.

The good Senator will reportedly say:

“I listened to you and took a common-sense approach to improve the bill. Now it lowers costs for families and small business, protects Medicare, finally guarantees coverage for pre-existing conditions and reduces the deficit. And it’s not run by the government. I’m convinced this is right for Nebraska.”

No mention of government funding for abortion in exchange for all of that in a bill that 65% of Americans dislike anyway. What Nelson doesn’t get is that people have a principled opposition to abortion. This Christmas wish list of goodies will only serve to enrage people further, as their integrity is held in contempt.

Not everyone’s conscience can be bought, Senator Nelson.

Read Full Post »

John Cardinal O'Connor

Read Part I here.
Part III here.
, Part IV here..

During the late 1980′s a narrative developed about the Catholic hierarchy, condoms, and HIV; A bunch of old celibate men, through their irrational opposition to any form of birth control, refused to teach the lifesaving truth that condoms prevent the transmission of HIV.

The problem is that the narrative is a lie, start to finish.

To begin, the opposition to the use of birth control is anything but irrational. In 1968 Pope Paul VI clearly articulated the Church’s 2,000 year consistent witness to this in Humanae Vitae, a brief but concise document. In paragraph 17, Pope Paul VI proves prescient:

“17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

“Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”

Certainly Cardinal O’Connor and the Bishops knew all too well the rise in promiscuity following widespread access to the pill in 1968. They knew the CDC data linked here which show the steady rise in STD rates. (Click on “all slides”). Fast-forwarding to today for a moment, Research out of Harvard agrees with the Church that Condoms can make HIV worse in Africa, among other places.

In the mid-80′s, the New York Times, the self-styled ‘paper of record’ carried several articles which cast a long shadow over the absolutist claims of condom safety by AIDS activists.

On August 24, 1987 the Times reported “20% of Condom Batches Fail”.

On May 12, 1988 the Times reported that 33 million condoms had been recalled in 1987 with a failure rate of 4/1000. The paper failed to reconcile those numbers with the 20% failure rate reported in August of the previous year. The paper did report that the 4/1000 was an improvement over the 4.8/1000 rate in 1986. These rates for domestic condoms were better than the 6.5/1000 in 1987 and 7.3/1000 in 1986 for imported condoms.

On August 18, 1987 the Times ran a major article entitled “Condoms: Experts Fear False Sense Of Security”. From the Article:

“MANY health officials have begun to voice concern that the campaign to encourage condom use to curb the spread of AIDS may be misunderstood, creating a false sense of security in people whose behavior continues to put them in danger.

“Experts say condoms should minimize the spread of the AIDS virus among the heterosexual population, especially when used with spermicides containing nonoxynol-9, which has been found to kill the virus in test tubes. The experts say this justifies recent campaigns promoting the devices.

“But they stress that it is unknown just how much protection condoms offer. The officials note that condoms have been widely rejected as a method of birth control because they frequently fail, and say the devices may be no better – in fact, may be worse – at curtailing AIDS. They warn that sexually active men and women should not assume that they are protected simply because they use prophylactics.”

The article is filled with notable quotes from experts, all expressing doubts.

It was an interesting time. Because the spermicide nonoxynol-9 was found to have killed HIV at high concentrations in test tubes, it was added as a lubricant and fail-safe against condom tearing or slipping. In recent years we have learned two devastating truths.

1. Nonoxynol-9 in the low concentration on condoms is ineffective against HIV.

2. Nonoxynol-9 in the low concentration on condoms causes ulcerations in the vaginas of women who use them frequently, such as sex workers. This means that N-9 does not kill the virus when condoms tear, and facilitates infection by compromising the vaginal and rectal epithelia.

Finally, a week after the desecration of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral by ACT-UP (reported in Part I), the Times reported that The National Women’s Health Network requested the FDA to remove approval for two new condoms:

“A public-interest health group said today that it had petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw marketing clearance for two new types of condoms because neither had been tested for effectiveness in preventing pregnancy or protecting against disease.

“The National Women’s Health Network, a nonprofit group based in Washington, charged that the Federal agency had erred in approving the devices under a legal provision that waives testing requirements if a new device is substantially like one already approved.”

It was an interesting time. Anti-retroviral medications were being hastened to market. New condoms were being hastened to market all in a desperate attempt to throw the entire arsenal at this virus. But desperate measures can have unintended consequences.

In time, what will be most remembered is the stubborn insistence of so many to having sex outside of a life’s commitment to mutual monogamy with ONE individual in the face of a disease that is so devastating.

Where were the AIDS activists when these reports were being published by the Times? They were busy crafting calumnies against men who read the Times and knew better, celibacy notwithstanding. These lies have become part of the HIV/AIDS lore. How many have gone to their deaths because of their false assurances and convenient scapegoating? Such activism in the name Public Health has been devastating.

It was an interesting time.

Next Wednesday, we’ll take a deeper look at the scientific data about condoms and consider them against the backdrop of STI/STD rates.

Read Full Post »

Thank You, Universalis

Yesterday I posted regarding the ghastly introduction to the Feast of the Holy Innocents by Universalis.com.

Martin Kochanski has written a reply, and this morning has given me permission to share that reply. He has also substantially rewritten the introduction and encouraged future feedback.

Thank You Mr. Kochanski, and God Bless you for the work of Universalis in bringing the Liturgy of the Hours to so many.

From: Universalis
Subject: Re: Introduction to Holy Innocents
To: Dr. Gerard M. Nadal
Date: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 8:44 AM

Thank you for your email. This was at first puzzling, since this commentary is one that has received particular praise from other people, but looking at it now I think I can see the source of your confusion. Those who delight in the commentary have understood, as you have not, the first paragraphs as referring to the ordinary human reaction to the massacre of the Innocents – ordinary, human, “rational” in a limited human sense – “natural” man untransformed by grace. In short, the reaction of most people living in our contemporary culture and thinking of themselves as reasonable, kind, decent persons in a neutral kind of way. Whether we like it or not, this is the base culture that most of us start from and it is the point from which our own sanctification has to start and the point from which our own spreading of the light has to start also. You are probably right to call it pagan.

Whether you ought to have inferred this context from the tone of the paragraphs in question, or whether the other people who praised the commentary ought not to have made the inference, doesn’t really matter. Clearly clarification is in order and I am sure that something will be done. I am sure that if you look at “About Today” page for 28 December 2010 you will see something rather different from what you saw this year.

- Martin Kochanski.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: CLICK HERE FOR 14 MORE POSTS ON QUOTES AND A TV INTERVIEW WITH MIKE WALLACE IN 1957.

Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger in her own words:

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

Note: Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research
Association, said, “There is a great danger that we will fail because
the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to
let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the
conference in Atlanta.”[2] Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of
America hired a full-time “Negro Consultant” in 1944.

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”

Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5

“As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation….
On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”

Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. “Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?” Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.

“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”

Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.

“The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order…”

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

Quote Source: EadsHome Ministries.

Read Full Post »

Read about it in the New York Times, October 22, 1913.

Read Full Post »

LifeNews reports on the Sage of San Francisco. It seems that part-time theologian Nancy Pelosi believes that Catholic Church teaching on free will admits the option of abortion.

“I have some concerns about the church’s position respecting a woman’s right to choose, I am a practicing Catholic, although they’re probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith. I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions,, and that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will.”

By that logic, why not decriminalize rape, robbery and murder? Shouldn’t those be a matter of choice? Are people not having their free will restrained by such usurpation of moral choice by the government?

Does the chief lawmaker in the House not realize that many behaviors must be constrained by force of law, that violators be incarcerated if they infringe on people’s right to proceed through life unmolested? Of course she does.

It is true that the Church teaches that conscience is inviolable. However, the Church teaches that conscience must be fully formed by divine revelation. Even when acting freely with a fully formed conscience, the individual understands that there is objective guilt that comes with the sin freely chosen. Regarding abortion, the fully informed individual realizes that excommunication is the penalty, with readmission to the Church requiring confession characterized by genuine remorse and a firm purpose of amendment.

Nancy neglected to share that in her interview. Not being very good at crafting just laws with regard to the rights of all people to live lives unmolested, Pelosi should redouble her efforts at being a legislator and leave theology to the professionals.

Speaking of the theologians, will the Bishops continue to allow Pelosi to publicly dissemble, or will one of them finally screw up the moral courage to publicly state that in Pelosi’s war of aggression on the unborn she has separated herself from the body of the Church? In a more enlightened time, among more courageous men, it used to be called excommunication. It used to be understood that excommunication was meant to be medicinal, helping return the sinner to their senses.

The silence of the Bishops is deafening.

Read Full Post »

Sound Off!

How best to remedy the language of the Reid bill on making death panels permanent by tying the hands of future Congresses? Your Thoughts?

Sound Off!!

Read Full Post »

Obama-Reid-Pelosi

A picture tells a thousand words. Honest Leadership. Open Government. Words emblazoned in the background and foreground. Politicians do this when their actions are deceitful and dishonest. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

This is the Party that literally changed the locks and would not permit Republican participation in the process, who hold votes in the middle of the night, who bribe, and now according to LifeNews.com are attempting to make Medicare death panels a permanent fixture by using language that would prohibit future sessions of the House and Senate from overturning the legislation.

Now will Americans get it? This is a political party literally drunk with blood. Death is their answer to everything. November can’t come soon enough.

Read Full Post »

Kennedy After Chappaquiddick

This week, the news outlets are running the usual lists of those who have died over the course of the year. Pro-Lifers lost a once-great potential ally in the person of Senator Edward Kennedy. When radical feminism began to dictate political longevity in the Democrat Party, Teddy caved. Kennedy is an interesting profile in character. Did his actions at Chappaquiddick set him off on the trajectory that he took on the life issues?

The great tragedy of Ted Kennedy is that he actually ‘got it’ on the the issue of abortion.


A letter to Mr. Thomas Donnelly of Great Neck, NY, dated August 3, 1971. Senator Kennedy writes:

Dear Mr. Donnelly:


I appreciate your letter containing your views on abortion. There are many moral and legal aspects arising from this complex issue which is gaining the acceptance of large numbers of women faced with unwanted pregnancies, while disturbing the consciences of a great many other Americans.

Opponents maintain that abortion is wrong from every theological, moral and medical aspect. Proponents are firmly convinced that the woman, alone, has the right to decide.

While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

On the question of the individual’s freedom of choice there are easily available birth control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire.

I share the confidence of those who feel that America is willing to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society’s problems — an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.

When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.

Sincerely,


Edward M. Kennedy

Then Teddy flipped. Some call that “Growth in Office”. Yes, cancer does seem to grow, and metastasize. Now we are dealing with a Democrat party building “death panels” into medicare, mandating that all Americans pay for abortions. Metastatic cancer knows no limits.

All pro-lifers need to pray for Teddy. None should wish him the denial of Paradise. He needs more prayers because his sins were so far reaching:derailing pro-life judicial nominees such as Robert Bork, while packing the judiciary with the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

For Teddy, we pray that beautiful prayer for those who undergo their purgation before entrance into the fullness of life.

O Gentlest heart of Jesus,
ever present in the Blessed Sacrament,
ever consumed with burning love for the poor captive souls in Purgatory
have mercy on the soul of Thy departed servant Edward.
Be not severe in Thy judgment but let some drops of Thy Precious Blood fall upon the devouring flames,
and do Thou O merciful Saviour send the angels to conduct him to a place of refreshment, light and peace. Amen.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: I received a note from Martin Kochanski today explaining matters. I’ve written back asking his permission to post it. I’ll let folks know. It does seem that immediate action was taken, as the site carries a very different introduction today.

Universalis.com is a very good and worthwhile project. It makes available the entire Liturgy of the Hours and Mass readings each day on the internet and even downloadable to mobile phones. This site has linked extensively to Universalis, and will continue to do so in the future.

It was with no small amount of shock that I read the introduction to today’s feast, The Holy Innocents.

Read it here at Universalis for yourself.

A ghastly introduction.

The Holy Innocents, Martyrs

“There is nothing to be said about the Holy Innocents. They were no-one because they never had the chance to become anyone: they just died.

“They may stand for the unimportant and unnecessary pawns that permeate the whole of human history, the ones who can be sacrificed for some greater cause because they don’t really matter; the eggs that were broken to make an omelette… or to make nothing at all…”

REALLY?!?! Your third paragraph creating a link to abortion is a non sequitur.

There is nothing to be said about the Holy Innocents? Well, Martin Kochanski, I suggest that you read my two posts today 1 and 2, to get yourself a clue.

They were no one?! So when God says He knew us before He knit us in our mother’s womb, we should tell Him to consult Universalis first.

If anyone is as outraged over this introduction to the Holy Innocents as I am, please contact Universalis.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 745 other followers

%d bloggers like this: