Bishop E.W. Jackson: The Truth about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood

The following is from CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) - At a press conference outside the National Portrait Gallery on Thursday, Bishop E.W. Jackson said that if Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger had her way Civil Rights Movement leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks "would never have been born."

The press conference brought together a group of black pastors and pro-life leaders who are demanding that the portrait gallery, which is a part of the federally funded Smithsonian Institution, remove a bust of Margaret Sanger.

The bust is featured in the gallery’s “The Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which focuses on historical equal rights achievements in America. Depictions of King and Parks are featured in the exhibit nearby Sanger’s bust.

“So even though, for PR purposes, she went from talking about eugenics to talking about birth control, her commitment to stopping the growth of the populations of those that she considered to be unfit or defective or unworthy continued,” Jackson said. “She said this: ‘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.'

“Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a euphemism for Planned Death for the people that Margaret Sanger thought should not exist,” said Jackson.

“To think that her bust sits alongside MLK and Rosa Parks!” he said. “If Margaret Sanger had her way MLK and Rosa Parks would have never been born.”

Jackson is the president of   STAND (Staying True to America’s National Destiny).

On Thursday, after the press conference, he delivered a petition signed by 14,000 calling for the Smithsonian to remove Sanger’s bust.

Fr. Anthony C. Neusch: On Whitewashed Mediocrity (God would never allow me to go to hell)

Fr. Anthony Neusch is a priest of the Diocese of Amarillo and Pastor of St. Anthony’s Catholic Church, Hereford, TX.  He was ordained to the priesthood, on May 29, 2004.

He wrote a guest column yesterday at the blog of Bellarmine Forum, entitled: The Problem with the Prevenient: Low Expectations are Killing the Faith.

I would like to offer a brief reflection about expectations and support to meet and exceed them.  I want to root these thoughts in just one word found in the Prayer Over the Gifts for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception “prevenient.”  This single word proves that I and my brother priests have, for the most part, failed generations of faithful Catholics.  I have personally heard or read several bishops and many priests use this single word to point to the failure of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal.  They say things such as, “Who uses the word prevenient anymore?” or, “The use of the word prevenient is proof enough that there is no concern about the reality of the American Church.”  Or my personal favorite, “I mean, I know what it means. But I have had eight years of seminary study.  There is no way that the normal person in the pew could even begin to understand what that word means.”  This good brother didn’t even try to pronounce it in his denunciation...

Then in a classic understatement:

      Too many of my brothers have set the bar too low...

If our expectations have been set so low, and I fear that they have, then the result is a sacramental ministerial priesthood with no zeal.  Why should I have a fire for souls when through our own lack of formation and evangelization the faithful have been assured of their own personal salvation through the virtue of niceness?  We have all heard it, “I am a good person, and I believe in God; He would never allow me to enter into Hell.”  To encourage the lowest common denominator of Christian knowledge can result only in the mediocre Christian life. 

Bishop Paprocki: Ask God to Forgive America for funding Planned Parenthood

This is from CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) - Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., said in a video statement yesterday that the United States needs a “Day of National Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” like the one President Abraham Lincoln called in 1863 in an era when many Americans denied the full humanity of African Americans.

“President Lincoln lived in a time when many people thought that African-Americans were not fully human,” Bishop Paprocki said. “The United States Supreme Court in fact declared as much in its infamously erroneous Dred Scott decision of 1857. But in our own time the Supreme Court continues to make wrongful decisions, as it did in 1973 in Roe v. Wade in deciding that unborn babies do not deserve the protection of the law, as well as this past June in attempting to redefine marriage contrary to the plan of God as described in the Book of Genesis.”

“Let us ask forgiveness,” said the bishop, “for our nation giving half a billion dollars every year of taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, founded by Margaret Sanger, a proponent of eugenics who urged Americans to ‘restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate’ and said that the ‘most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’"

Sophia Institute: Making Marriage Heaven on Earth (video)

The above video was produce by the Sophia Institute.  Herewith some background:

A Project of Sophia Institute for Teachers

Funded completely through charitable donations, Sophia Institute for Teachers provides Catholic educators with the tools and training they need to catechize students and prepare them to live out the Catholic Faith.

In the past year, Sophia Institute has either hosted or scheduled over 100 catechetical workshops for thousands of Catholic school teachers.

Sophia SketchPad was created as a free resource to help teachers, parents, and catechists articulate the truths of our Faith. In this 6-minute video, we explain why Jesus elevated marriage to a Sacrament, and how married love mirrors the life-giving, unbreakable bond of love of the Blessed Trinity. 

We hope you enjoy this new video and that it is a helpful resource in your classroom, parish, or home.

Donate Now

Fr. Mark Pilon on Catholic Prelates and Prevaricating Politicians

Fr, Mark A. Pilon, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, who received a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from Santa Croce University in Rome, wrote an essay today at The Catholic Thing.org, entitled: How Will History Judge Us?

In it, he draws a compelling parallel between the Weimark Republic (had it not become the Third Reich) and the German bishops of today, thence between the German bishops and our own American Catholic bishops.

Suppose Germany from the early 1930s through 1945 had remained the (democratic) Weimar Republic rather than become the Third Reich, a one-party dictatorship. Also suppose that many democratically elected representatives from various liberal and conservative parties had signed on to and advanced the anti-Semitic policies of the Nazis and Hitler. Further suppose that even Catholic elected parliamentarians from the opposition parties joined with the Nazi Party and voted to advance the so-called Final Solution of the Jewish question, and publicly supported its implementation. Just suppose, for argument’s sake, that all of this was historical fact.

Now, let’s go further and suppose that the German bishops had taken no action to discipline those Catholic politicians, in whatever parties, either by excommunication or denying them the sacraments. (We know that disciplinary action has recently been enforced by German bishops for simply refusing to pay the Church tax by not registering as Catholics with the government.) But suppose no such disciplines were enforced back in those evil days, and suppose polls were taken showing that more and more German Catholics were either confused on this grave moral issue or actually had begun to support genocidal racial policies...

For the past fifty years, the Catholic laity in America have heard very clear condemnations of the monstrous crime of abortion from their bishops. But at the same time, they have witnessed prominent Catholic politicians openly supporting abortion rights and fighting efforts to restrict those rights – some even defending the outrages of Planned Parenthood, about which several bishops have spoken out, but done little else. Meanwhile, the dissenting politicians continue to call themselves faithful Catholics and receive Communion publicly, sometimes from the hands of their own bishops...

How will history judge this generation of Church leaders when this human carnage finally ends? How will future generations of Catholics judge this generation’s spiritual leaders if they look back and see that that no Catholic leader was ever disciplined for voting for and positively supporting not only abortion, but now the perversion of the institution of marriage? The same Catholic politicos who have supported the right to terminate innocent lives of the unborn are now supporting the rights of homosexuals to marry and even calling on the Church to change her teaching. Undoubtedly, next will come euthanasia rights disguised as mercy.

Bishop Thomas Paprocki on Obama and Planned Parenthood

Finally an American Catholic prelate, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, has spoken out strongly about the aborted body parts scandal at Planned Parenthood exposed by the undercover videos of the Center for Medical Progress.

In a post yesterday at LifeSiteNews.com, Bishop Paprocki is quoted expounding on the gross evil being perpetrated at Planned Parenthood, and the "deafening silence" coming from the White House about it.

Dispensing with ambiguity, Bishop Thomas Paprocki used the terms “shocked,” “appalled” and “moral depravity” in his assessment of the evil revealed in the Planned Parenthood videos, and likened the callousness to human life today with the classical world of the Greeks and Romans, where abortion and infanticide were widespread and commonplace.

“Since the moral decadence of our 20th Century western world now rivals the decline and fall of the Roman Empire it should not surprise us that the nationwide abortion-provider Planned Parenthood has been exposed for trafficking and selling the body parts of aborted babies,” he stated in a July 26 video and column. “I say we should not be surprised, but we still should be shocked and appalled at this moral depravity.”

Bishop Paprocki also denounced the Obama administration’s complicity with the nation’s largest abortion provider, pointing out in his message how Barack Obama was the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood, when in 2013 he told the abortion behemoth it had a president who was going to be there with it fighting every step of the way.  

“What have we heard about this expose of Planned Parenthood from the White House, which was illuminated in rainbow colors when the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the country?” Bishop Paprocki asked, taking great pause. “Silence, deafening silence.”

You can read the entire post at Lifesitenews.com, and watch the video of Bishop Paprocki by clicking HERE.

Chuck Schumer shows Political Courage. Who Knew?

New York Senator Chuck Schumer, in a rare move away from his party loyalty has stated he will vote to disapprove the nefarious "Iran deal."  A skeptic might be inclined to suspect that this courageous gesture on his part is not really all that courageous.  It's possible that he was given permission to placate his Jewish base by voting against the deal, which even without his vote will surely pass or at least survive an attempt to override the promised veto if it does pass.  It would be nice to think that he is truly risking his place in the hierarchy of his party - and maybe he is.

So, in today's Notable & Quotable section of the Wall Street Journal, Schumer explains his decision to vote against this ill advised "deal."

Notable & Quotable: Chuck Schumer on Iran

The risk that the regime use the nuclear agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great to vote to approve it.

If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.

But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

Fr. Robert Barron on Spiritual Food

Andrew Klavan: Cecil the Lion and the Butchery and Sale of Human Babies

Andrew Klavan wrote an essay yesterday on PJMedia, entitled "Loving Animals, Loving People."  It's reproduced in its entirety below.

My dog is dying, after a long life of beaches and forests and affection. She is one of the sweetest, gentlest, most enthusiastic creatures I’ve ever met, my friend and companion for nearly fifteen years. So even before the news and social media degraded and humiliated themselves by going into hysterics over the death of Cecil the lion while covering up or excusing Planned Parenthood’s butchery and sale of human babies, I’ve had cause to reflect on human-animal relationships.

It in no way detracts from the goodness of my dog nor diminishes my devotion to her to observe that there’s a measure of narcissism in the love of animals. Our pets demand any number of little attentions from us, but they will never ask us to change our opinions. They will never challenge the validity of our inner worlds with their own.

Those competing inner visions humans have — other outlooks; conflicting opinions — that’s what narcissists can’t stand; that’s what really offends them. It’s not enough for a narcissistic tyrant that you do what he says, you also have to profess what he believes. It’s not enough that you leave him alone, you have to bake the cake for his wedding too. Narcissists can’t abide the Other. Competing inner worlds drive them to insane levels of cruelty, brutality and even murder. Animals never pose that problem for them. That’s why so many people who preen themselves on their love of animals are such rotten imbeciles when it comes to other humans. The PETA types who assault people for wearing fur, say. Philosopher Peter Singer who believes a baby may be morally killed but not a dog. Such love of animals is not love at all; just narcissism made flesh.