A commenter at AmP mentioned this video clip of a long form interview by a young Mike Wallace of an aging Margaret Sanger.  Up until now, I have read some quotes, some accounts, and the like, but this is a chance to hear her in her own words.  Of particular interest is when Wallace mentions her comments to his reporter that religions should not prohibit the dissemination of birth control even among their own members.  He asks her if she actually means that the government should legislatively prevent religions from prohibiting certain activities to their members.  She dances around nicely and doesn’t answer.  Then he asks her if she believes in God, and she responds that she believes in the divine in all of us, and that if we live out the good part of our lives, we increase the amount of divinity in us (my, how new age of her, eh?  New age isn’t so new, is it?)

One of the best though is when Wallace asks her if she believes that sin exists.  She says

I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world-that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born.

Which is to say that humans have no ability to self-improve. It’s that whole quality of life issue that gets beaten over and over - creating a life which has no quality in Sanger’s eyes is a sin. I question…if more people knew of the mentality of the people pushing birth control from the beginning, would they want to be anywhere near it?

Watch the video!

Of all the posts I have written on this blog, the one that has consistently gotten comments over the nearly a year since I wrote it regards Fr. Francis Mary Stone, of EWTN’s Life on the Rock fame.  At that time, we simply had a statement that was read on air, from Father Francis telling his public that he had gotten involved with a widow and her family and was now taking time off to discern his true calling, etc.

At that time, I voiced a concern about this idea that you can just decide to stop and discern your vocation after you’ve already committed yourself to it.  I likened it to marriage…the idea that you, dear reader, would absolutely and rightly skewer me if I revealed on my blog that I had grown fond of an eligible young lady at my place of work, and that I was going to take a sabbatical from being a husband and father to my wife and kids while I discerned my vocation in life, and whether or not they were indeed a part of it.  You’d tell me that this was unacceptable because I had already taken solemn and sacramental vows to my wife, and taken on the vocation of pastoring the Domestic Church, and it would in fact be impossible for me to just abandon those vows.  Some commenters agreed with me, but many of them said things like this:

We need to give Father Francis the benefit of the doubt here. We all know, as viewers, that he is going to do everything to the best of his ability to do God’s Ordaining Will.

To them I always simply ask the question: would you say the same thing if I told you I was discerning my vocation of marriage and family?  I can’t get a straight answer from anyone who made such comments.  Most of the commenters just expressed sadness at the situation, and one troll suggested this was an example of why a celibate priesthood makes no sense.  Got to love the trolls.

Over the months there’ve been comments asking if there’s any new information on Fr. Francis.  Well, this morning, a commenter in fact gave us a piece of news that apparently Fr. Francis went through laicization or is just AWOL from the priesthood, as he has now opened up his website for his new company, “Dave Stone, Inc.”  The WHOIS Lookup on the domain name doesn’t reveal any information about who really registered the domain name, but the information on the website is commensurate with what we know about Mr. Stone.  Naturally, anyone who wants to could build such a site, complete with photos and biographical information which are correct about Mr. Stone, but of note is that on the home page, an audio clip plays welcoming visitors to the site, and the audio is pretty clearly the voice we know as that of (former?) Fr. Stone.

The website indicates that Dave Stone Inc. offers 3 services: motivational speaking, home health care provision, and a nutritional beverage being sold under an Amway-esque pyramid multi-level-marketing scheme.  According to the site, Stone will do speaking engagements for free (except travel expenses and a small retainer fee.)  The primary focus is the home healthcare stuff, and the nutritional drink is just plain disturbing because it has a new-agey, eastern religious, medicine show quality to it (rejuvenate yourself, unlock your full potential, standard buzzwords you hear on midnight infomercials.)

One blogger said it sounds like Stone is facing the cold, hard reality that a husband and father must provide for his family.  Adjectives like cold and hard make it sound like a negative, and I am confident that that blogger didn’t mean it to come across that way, rather just that now that he’s abandoned his first set of vows, he’s having to make good on the second set by getting up, leaving the cave, killing something, and dragging it back (props to Dave Ramsey for this analogy.)

To be clear, I don’t wish Mr. Stone any ill at all.  I am disappointed as I would be if someone I look to as a marriage champion were to come to me and tell me that they had decided to split up with their spouse, because unlike so many commenters, I still see it as Stone divorced his first love and has moved on to a second one.  I don’t wish Mr. Stone bad luck in his business or in his family life.  For the sake of his family, I hope that he does a better job keeping this set of vows than he did keeping his first set, in spite of the fact that the two are supposed to be mutually exclusive and both binding until death.

I’ve already expressed my feelings on his apparent exit from the priesthood, but now I have 3 new problems with Mr. Stone.  First, he’s using the “Life on the Rock” slogan throughout his website - this was the name of his EWTN show, and he’s clearly trying to use the reputation from what is now his past life to further a commercial venture.  Right on the home page it says “Living Life on the Rock.”  Now it’s not exactly the same but it’s close enough to just sound like he’s trying to make hay out of his previous life and cash in on it.  Secondly, he refers to his EWTN experience saying he was the host of the “then popular” show Life on the Rock.  The implication? Since I am not the host anymore, it’s not popular anymore.  That comes across as just kind of scummy.  Fact is, the show has continued in the year or so since he left, with continued success.

The third problem I have is the marketing campaign apparently launched to use the Catholic blogosphere to promote his new website and new company.  According to the site, he launched the website on October 4.  Interestingly, though, no one seems to have known about the website until early this morning.  A commenter posted a link to Mr. Stone’s website at 5:41 AM today; seems the same thing happened to Curt Jester, American Papist, Father Joe, Abbey Roads 2, Threshing Grain, and the list goes on.  Since I don’t blog for a living, I couldn’t break the story (I think Father Joe and Thomas at AmP win that award) but I was aware of it first thing this morning.  Now it’s unclear whether it was some well-meaning commenter who tipped us all off, or if in fact it was a plan to get all us Catholic bloggers to post about the site, then all our readers (not mine, but the readers of the serious Catholic blogs) would click through to the site and drive the traffic through the roof on Mr. Stone’s site.  Call me a conspiracy theorist but the IP address of the commenter who posted on this blog belongs to AT&T internet services, and they do provide internet service throughout Alabama; they also provide it to about half the country, so that’s not really any proof at all.  It just smells bad, that we’d all get hit with this at once.  And, seeing as my blog is much lower on the totem pole than are some of the others mentioned, it makes little sense to “tip” me off, unless it were a concerted marketing effort. Maybe I am making too much of it.  In any event, just to keep from being used this way, I won’t post a link to the site.  You can find it if you want to.

Since the story broke, Mr. Stone has added some information to his website, including a “newsletter” item in which he addresses a few things.  First of all, he has a statement up on his “hire me to speak” page where he says he’s in full communion with the Catholic Church.  Second, he says:

Yes, there are difficulties - obstacles, things that went wrong, flailing bullets, regrets, call them what you will - before me. Yet, by God’s merciful Providence, I have a family to care for now, a child who deserves nothing but the very best I can give him. And, I plan to do exactly that – to do what I ought to do – as natural law, the moral law, divine law, basic human decency, and common sense all dictate. Or, as someone told me not all that long ago, to do as any real Pro-Lifer would and should do. Having long reconciled with the Church and, frankly, beyond, I look forward to giving every fiber of my being to this new endeavor…

…

I urge you all to help, not hinder me in this righteous and necessary, albeit most difficult work. I am nothing but hopeful, aware but not disheartened by those who, oddly, go to at times great lengths to try and diminish and destroy. Mother Angelica often spoke in our long-gone “Wednesday Audiences” about those who continually look to destroy…

One last thing I just noticed that makes it start to really stink…a book deal is in the works! Imagine that…

At the urging of many trusted and capable individuals, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike, I am in the middle of writing my autobiography and editing a short book containing many of the letters I’ve received over the past year or so. I believe the former will provide much needed context, while the latter will provide a most inspiring and encouraging resource for anyone having to work through a difficult but far from hopeless time in their life.

I am fighting my cynical tendencies at this point.  Again using a part of your life which you have essentially forsaken and divorced yourself from toam make money.  I guess it’s just my fallen nature seeing this, but it just looks too much like the typical template.  God help us, let’s hope this isn’t a repeat of former Fr. Chiniquy’s work (50 years in the Church of Rome or something like that.)

To reiterate I wish him no ill, he has a life to live and a family to support, but before you proceed to skewer me yet again, just ask yourself…if Mr. Stone had been married with children and went through the same thing, would you be so quick to defend him?

The MSM doesn’t like Archbishop Burke’s recent promotion.

Vatican officials seldom single out political leaders who differ with the Church on issues like abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research. But now that the Vatican’s highest court is led by an American, the former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, we can expect things to get more explicit in Vatican City — at least when when it comes to U.S. politics.

Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked “transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues.” He then attacked two of the party’s most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion.

He said Biden and Pelosi, “while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have presented Church doctrine on abortion in a false and tendentious way.”

Naturally the tone of the article continues…

Read it.

Interesting developments today in the world of Catholic morality.  For some time, a theologian who I have heard mentioned a few times, Doug Kmiec, has been working on mental gymnastics to somehow come out with the notion that it is possible to maintain one’s Communion with the Catholic Church while at the same time supporting the Obamessiah for President.  Of course, the Catholic blogosphere, largely inhabited by orthodox, faithful Catholics (as opposed to “progressive” or more accurately heterodox Catholics, or even more accurately, “protestants”) has kept my heart from being too troubled on the matter, since their response has been uniformly critical of Kmiec’s position.  However, now there’s a website…prolifeproobama.com, with Kmiec as the poster boy for a staunchly pro-life Catholic who has come up with a rationalization for being pro-Obama.  Now Kmiec runs a serious risk to his eternal destiny here, because it’s one thing to choose a morally bankrupt position for yourself, but there’s something about millstones involving people who willingly convince others to choose the same morally bankrupt position.

Basically, Kmiec’s thesis is that Obama will do more to reduce abortion than McCain will, presumably by eliminating poverty and providing free health care (not to mention providing large amounts of free contraception, which is an entirely additional problem with Kmiec’s argument).  Something along the lines of, if you take away peoples’ “need” to abort, they won’t do it.  Of course this is fallacious…the democrat party has actually removed wording relating to making abortion rare (because to do so, they would be admitting there was a reason to make it rare, like maybe it had negative effects on people or something.)

Proving that satire is a great way to combat such insanity, the Curt Jester has written a great piece on why a good, moral person could support Stephen Douglas for President in 1860.  An excerpt…then you can go read the rest of it here:

Though Senator Douglas does not regard a slaveholding society as one whit inferior to a free society I think he is the best choice to reduce slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 proves that he is pro-choice on the issue of slavery since the act allowed these new states coming into the union to make up their own mind as to whether slavery should be allowed in their territory. He lets the people in the state decide as to whether slavery is moral or immoral. Surely this will limit slavery and as we work for a more just society more and more slaveowners will decide to reduce the number of slaves they own. Just because Sen. Douglas has invoked racist rhetoric and accused Lincoln of supporting black equality which he believes the authors of the Declaration of Independence did not intend, does not mean that he is pro-slavery. Even supporters of slavery can be conflicted about slavery and whether blacks are equal to us or not and we should move to a society where slavery is safe, legal, and rare. Plus it is not true to call him pro-slavery. He is for the choice of slavery and people can decide on their own whether they want to become slaveowners or not. Shouldn’t we let people make their own choices on this issue? Do we really want to legislate morality? Now as a Catholic I personally believe that slavery is wrong, but lawmakers need to represent the people.

When desecration of the Eucharist became all the rage a couple of months ago, I predicted there’d be a rash of immature teenager copycat types trying to pull the same kind of stuff.  Unfortunately, I was right.  We have a post from the friendly folks at Priests in Crisis on the subject.

Now, it’s sick and wrong, but I don’t advocate signing the YouTube petition to get this kid’s videos taken down.  He’s got as much right to do his thing as I have to post to this blog, and his hate speech is protected.

The priests throughout America need to be paying attention to this kid though, memorizing what he looks like, and laying the catechesis on heavily from the ambo if necessary in order to simply make sure he can’t get any more consecrated hosts.

Here’s a story featured in the Catholic News Service today. It talks about how Canadian Catholics, and specifically Canadian Catholic politicians, seem split on supporting social justice issues and life issues.

Canada’s political battleground splits Catholic politicians between those formed by Catholic social justice movements and those who stake their Catholic and political identity on support for life and family issues, said a church historian.

“I’ve yet to see a politician make it work where these different things are wedded together,” said Mark McGowan, church historian and principal at the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto.

New Democratic Party member of Parliament Charlie Angus, representing Timmins-James Bay, Ontario, is a former Catholic New Times columnist and a practicing Catholic. Tony Martin of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, also a New Democratic Party member of Parliament, comes from Irish Catholic working-class roots and speaks frequently about social justice and the church.

Liberals also have captured the imaginations of social-justice-minded Catholics.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, a Liberal Party member, is a churchgoing Catholic and a graduate of the University of St. Michael’s College. He has based his politics on Catholic social teaching, most notably in his commitment to debt relief for the Third World, an issue Pope John Paul II spoke about frequently.

The classic failure of liberal Catholics and the liberal MSM has been committed by CNS here also.  No one seems to realize that life issues are the cornerstone of Catholic social justice teaching.  Without protecting all human life, you can’t even start talking about social justice, because a person who’s dead doesn’t need social justice.  I think the reason it’s so overlooked is that the press makes the assumption that in order to be in favor of any part of Catholic social justice teaching, you have to believe that the government should be used to enforce that social justice (and I don’t blink at using the word “enforce.”)  I seriously doubt that pro-life Catholic politicians are opposed to the Church’s social justice teachings; typically they fall more on the conservative side of the aisle and advocate for government to get out of the way so the average joe can have more resources with which to fight for social justice.  The real shame is that the folks who want to use the police power of government to enforce social justice can’t see that they should be using the police power of government to protect life (which is actually a legitimate use of the police power of government) which is at the heart of social justice teaching.

article

On the lighter side, R.A.G.E. Media has a list of Scott Hahn facts, inspired by all the great Chuck Norris facts you can find out there on teh interwebs.  A sampling:

Helen Keller’s favorite noise is Scott Hahn.

Scott Hahn ruins the ending of the Gospel of Matt for teenagers, just to
seem them cry with joy. When this doesn’t work, Scott Hahn says “I’ll give
you something to cry about” and shows them Matt 5:28.

If you can see Scott Hahn, he can see you.

If you can’t see Scott hahn you may be only seconds away from a Catechismic
kick to the face.

While he was on a mission trip to South America, Scott Hahn converted the
entire country of Russia over to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by yelling
“Rosary!”

Scott Hahn can say “transubstantiation!” faster than you can say “bang!”

I heard a brief interview by Sean Hannity with abortion survivor Gianna Jessen on his radio show yesterday afternoon.  I also heard the audio from the new ad in which she appears for BornAliveTruth.com.  It’s a great and powerful ad.

Gianna also appeared on Hannity and Colmes.  She got 5 minutes, but that was enough to eat Alan Colmes for lunch.  Enjoy!

Click here to watch the fun!

One other blogger I was reading suggested  that this may be Obama’s “swiftboat” except that Jessen has irrefutable truth on her side (whereas everybody knew the swiftboaters were telling the truth, it just wasn’t irrefutable.)

If you haven’t heard the story of Gianna Jessen singing the National Anthem before the general assembly of Colorado on the morning that they were to pass a resolution honoring Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, go read it now!

I was amused to read and listen to the sound bites from last evening’s interview by Charles Gibson of Sarah Palin, especially in the context of the cavity-inducing interview between Obama and Stephanopoulos a few nights ago.  Gibson was out for blood from the start, and Palin met him well right down the line

.

Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln. ABC and Gibson focused on Palin as if she were running right now for the presidency rather than the vice presidency. He and other media pundits, by contrast, have never asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, if he has ever had to make a decision on anything. Gibson’s aggressive approach appeared to take Palin by surprise: He was clearly attempting to put her on point by presenting her as having extreme religious views. This again, however, appears to be a double-standard, as Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God, one of the largest Christian denominations in America with 16 million members, and is now a member of the Wasilla Bible Church. Even now, Obama has yet to receive any comparable grilling on his 20-year attendance in the congregation of the notoriously racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Of special interest in Charles Gibson’s ignorance of the Bush Doctrine.  The term was coined by Charles Krauthammer, and in a scalding editorial, he corrects Mr. Gibson.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?” Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

(post by Seminarian Tim)

COLUMBIA, S.C. - South Carolina’s Democratic Party chairwoman said Wednesday that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s top qualification seems to be not having had an abortion. She later apologized.

In an interview posted on the political Web site Politico, Chairwoman Carol Fowler said Republican John McCain picked a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Fowler later apologized, saying she made the statement during an interview about single-issue voters.

“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive,” Fowler said in a statement.

So its great that the chairwoman can twist her words from bashing Palin for never having an abortion, but then completely flip-flopping 180 degrees to say that its such a tough and difficult choice. That right, real tough. To kill or not to kill, that IS the question. Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the ridicule of the pinko party, or to be a person of good moral standing and integrity; and by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep, perhaps to dream about whether it is a flesh of tissue. Ah, but that’s the rub, because in the culture of death, what life may survive? Thinking like this turns every lefty into a bigger coward than he (Yeah that’s right, I don’t use inclusive language) already was. When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause. There’s the respect that makes calamity of so long life. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely the pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of th’ unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,

And enterprise of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents turn awry

And lose the name of action. — Soft you now, the fair Palin! — Nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins remembered.

Be all of our sins remembered. Remember the best thing that we can do is to pray every day, unceasingly for the conversion of these souls.