Little Lost Lambeth

What do a 2000 year old Christian Tradition, the Anglican Lambeth Conference and English author Aldous Huxley have in common?…

Twenty-Five Years Before the Pill was Invented, It was Parodied as the Anti-eucharist

by Stephen Kellmeyer | Sept/Oct 1998 Envoy Magazine

This Article in a PDF.

In 1930, the Anglican Church made a decision that proved tragic for the entire world. About the only two voices that realized the problem were, of course, the Catholic Church, and surprisingly, an agnostic.

The year is 1932. On the Continent, Adolf Hitler is still 11 months away from gaining control of the German government. Though he continues to search for a way to gain the electoral majority necessary to rule Germany, he has already won a major victory in England, a victory that will continue to grow and metastasize long after he lies dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a burning bunker in Berlin 13 years in the future.

LittleLostLambeth

Yet, even as English Churchmen nurture the seed of Hitler’s philosophy on their isle, another voice has risen from among the inhabitants of that gallant land. This voice has spent the last two years forming one of the most insightful and strident attacks on Nazi philosophy ever concocted, and it is now, in February, 1932, that the author releases his work into the stream of history. The battle between the philosophies continues to be fought down to this very day: the battle between the eugenics, advocated in seminal form by the Church of England, and the natural law, upheld by an agnostic who saw the preposterous conclusions to which the contraceptive philosophy must inevitably lead.

The agnostic was Aldous Huxley; his book, Brave New World, would constitute not only an incredibly prophetic description of the contracepting society, but also a deft parody of the Christian church which first legalized the idea. Prior to 1930, contraception had been uniformly condemned by every Christian denomination in the world since the death of Christ.

“The President made another sign of the T and sat down. The service had begun. The dedicated soma tablets were placed in the center of the table. The loving cup of strawberry ice-cream soma was passed from hand to hand and, with the formula, ‘I drink to my annihilation,’ twelve times quaffed. Then to the accompaniment of the synthetic orchestra the First Solidarity Hymn was sung….”
Unfortunately, Darwin’s work between 1854 and 1872 had a profound influence on European and American society. His “survival of the fittest” argument soon produced the idea that some human beings were less fit, less worthy to procreate than others. Both sides of the Atlantic forged ahead with applications of this “breakthrough” in scientific understanding. Scientific journals devoted to eugenics, the breeding of a better human animal, soon became common throughout Europe. Francis Galton, the man who coined the word “eugenics,” established a research fellowship in University College, London in 1908, and his Eugenics Society began work in the same year.

By the early 1920s, Margaret Sanger and several of her English lovers were touting contraception and involuntary sterilization as a way to limit the breeding of the “human weeds,” as Sanger called them: the insane, the mentally-retarded, criminals, and people with Slavic, Southern Mediterranean, Jewish, black or Catholic backgrounds (ironically, Sanger was herself raised by a Catholic mother).

Though most supporters of atheistic rationalist scientific progress don’t advertise it, Hitler’s racial purity schemes were nothing more than the application of 1920s “cutting-edge” biology. When this attitude encountered Christianity, the results were uniformly explosive. Ever since 1867, Anglican bishops had been meeting roughly every ten years at Lambeth Palace, London, in order to discern how best to govern their Church. Mounting eugenics pressures had required the bishops in both the 1908 and the 1920 conferences to fiercely condemn contraception. But the constant eugenics drumbeat would not let up.

The 1930 conference brought even greater internal challenges; many of the people advising the bishops were eugenicists, indeed, at least one attendee, the Reverend Doctor D.S. Bailey, would be both a member of the International Eugenics Society and an active participant in the conference.

Between the general mood of society and the insistence of advisers, the Anglican bishops were placed under extreme pressure to allow some form of artificial contraception. On August 14,1930, after heated debate, they voted 193 to 67, with 14 abstentions, to permit the use of contraceptives at the discretion of married couples. The decision rocked the Christian world — it was the first time any Christian Church had dared to attack the underlying foundations of the sacred marital act, the act in which another image of God was brought into creation through the parents’ participation in co-creation with God. Pope Pius XI, deeply saddened, issued Casti Connubii, just four short months later on December 31, 1930, reiterating the constant Christian teaching that artificial contraception was forbidden as an intrinsically evil act.

Continue reading

Reactions to the Pope’s Encyclical on Contraception


(RNS1-feb26) (!978) Pope Paul VI, died at 9:40 p.m. on Aug. 6 at the age of 80, after suffering a heart attack in his summer residence at Castel-gandolfo, Italy. For use with RNS-POPE-PAULVI, transmitted on February 26, 2014, Religion News Service file photo

It is interesting now to look back at the various reactions when the pope issued his encyclical on contraception. I dug up the following, and I think they pretty much speak for themselves. It is hardly necessary to add any comments at all except to say how little things have changed.

A leader from an association of Protestant mainline denominations called it “the most important encyclical ever promulgated in the entire history of the papal succession.” He said, “I am glad that this pronouncement is so thoroughly clear-cut and uncompromising.” He was glad that everyone had to be either for it or against it. There was no middle ground.

And why did that make him glad?

“It will mark a new era in wide and deep-going revolt against ecclesiastical control. It will bring … nearer a revolt within the Roman Catholic Church.” He said this attempt by the Church, with its “autocratic domination” to interfere with the private and intimate matters will push it closer to its own inevitable collapse. This exercise of “hierarchical power” would certainly be met with “indignant repudiation” by Catholics themselves.

In other words, he was glad that the Catholic Church made its position clear, so that Protestants and everyone else could clearly reject it. No middle ground. And he predicted Catholics would reject it, too.

A leading feminist said the Church had set itself “squarely against progress.” She said the message of the encyclical was: “Go ahead and have a child every year, never mind if you are too poor to give them a decent home; never mind if they will be born sick or feeble-minded; never mind if they will be born deformed. Birth control under any and all circumstances is a horrible crime.” She said the pope’s denunciation of contraception would lead to more poverty and more disease. She praised the Protestant and Jewish congregations that had already officially endorsed contraception.

The pope’s interpretation of marriage is pure mythology … his denunciation of birth control is bigotry.A doctor said the document was “confusing,” especially when it came to the issue of the health and welfare of the mother. He disagreed with the encyclical that claimed contraception violates nature. And he observed that the declining birth-rate among Catholics indicated that the rule was “being more observed in the breach.”

A pastor of a non-denominational church in New York said the encyclical was an example of “a tenth-century mind at work on twentieth-century problems. We are never going to get anywhere with marriage or anything else by going back to St. Augustine. The pope’s interpretation of marriage is pure mythology … his denunciation of birth control is bigotry.” Continue reading

The real Pope Francis and his real enemies

mondayvatican.com/vatican/the-real-pope-francis-and-his-real-enemies
By Andrea Gagliarducci
25 May 2015

Pope Francis’ opening address to the Italian Bishops Conference’s general assembly showed the spirit of the real Pope Francis. The Pope condensed his views about the Church into two pages of text that he personally wrote. His view is of a non-clerical Church, capable of educating lay people, with priests and bishops who act as shepherds, not managers. He always says the same things, but it is significant that he stated this in front of the Italian Bishops, thought to be a particular target of his. And the way the assembly carried on afterwards perhaps reveals who Pope Francis’ real enemies are. In the end it is but one enemy: ecclesiastical careerism.

Pope Francis’ real spirit may be summarized in one sentence he loves to repeat: “hacer lío, [make noise].…what is missing is the habit of verifying the reception of programs and the way that projects are put into effect. For example, conventions and events are organized with the usual voices heard on stage, voices that anaesthetize the community, thereby homogenizing choices, opinions and people, instead of carrying us toward the horizons where the Spirit asks us to reach out”.To be clear, careerism is not a problem exclusive to Pope Francis’ pontificate. Benedict XVI addressed the issue in one of his first his first ordination of priests as Pope  and returned to it many times. In 2009 he spoke about careerism in the homily for a Mass of consecration of five new bishops, among them the current Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin. Even John Paul II had to cope with careerist trends, as did Paul VI, and as John Paul I would have done had he lived long enough.

Nevertheless, it is remarkable that careerism from two different groups flourishes right under the gaze of Pope Francis, who from the start claimed he wanted to move the Church beyond it – as his two consistories for the creation of cardinals may show. One group consists in those prelates who had influence prior to the pontificate of Benedict XVI, but who then felt marginalized by him. The second is found in those who are directly linked to Pope Francis’ new course, but who are unable to see that his course has changed somewhat over the past couple of years.

Remarkably, these two groups of careerists are somewhat connected. The Pope who came “from the end of the world” was not particularly confident in the Roman Curia, and was informed about it by some of his closest collaborators – men like Msgr. Fabian Pedacchio, who serves both in the Congregation for Bishops and as the Pope’s private secretary – and from newspapers. He also trusted some of the old curial hands, many of whom, as Vatican diplomats, were marginalized under Benedict XVI because his pontificate was founded on the notions of truth and communion. This is the reason that at the beginning of Francis’ pontificate diplomats had huge influence. The old Curia of John Paul II, led by the powerful Cardinal Angelo Sodano, became influential once again, a fact signaled by the appointment of Beniamino Stella, a former nuncio, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy; the very quick rise of Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, another former nuncio, who was supposed to end his career as Secretary of the Congregation of Bishops, but who suddenly was named General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops; and the old-school diplomat Pietro Parolin, who was picked as Secretary of State.

Read More…

NO on AB 775 Reproductive FACT Act

Seeks to force citizens who are abortion opponents to violate their own freedom of speech by effectively endorsing the mission of their opponents, abortion proponents.

1stAmendment2ndClassEnshrines in law content-based censorship–“if you don’t want your speech to be restricted, don’t advocate pro-life”, Makes pro-lifers “1st amendment 2nd class”.

The equivalent in the commercial world would be to require businesses to refer customers to their competitors. An equivalent law could be passed commanding McDonald’s to inform its customers of the menu and prices at Burger King or Carl’s Junior.

Abortion businesses are not required to refer their clients to crisis pregnancy centers, but crisis pregnancy centers would be required to refer their clients to county facilities which send them to abortion businesses.

Puts government in the business of deciding which scientific facts are politically favored—those which pass a litmus test in favor of sexual license and population control.

Government will politically disfavor scientific facts which disadvantage the for-profit abortion industry.

Find Your California Representative

Marie Leatherby: "Women Deserve Full Information On Abortion"

Amy Everitt declares 43 crisis pregnancy centers in California a “threat to public health” (“Crisis pregnancy centers threaten women’s health,” Viewpoints, March 12).

Her main criticism is alleged misinformation. Yet throughout the article, she spreads misinformation mostly based on an investigation performed by her organization – California’s National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League chapter – a biased source.

The Sacramento Life Center has medical licenses for all three clinics run by an OB/GYN and registered nurse. In January, 82 percent of our patients had already decided they wanted to continue their pregnancy but needed resources to overcome hurdles – lack of health insurance, domestic violence, undocumented status, low income – before they finalized their choice.

Many said our clinic was the first to offer help; other clinics recommended abortion and said they could not help if they opted to continue their pregnancy. Planned Parenthood often refers these patients to us. We connect them to low- and no-cost care, safe houses, and food and clothing resources. Ninety-nine percent of our patients report high satisfaction or satisfaction with services they received.

Women are strong and deserve to have comprehensive information about procedures they are considering for their bodies. Everitt chastises centers for sharing “gruesome descriptions” of abortion. We agree that inflammatory language and graphic photos are irresponsible, but so is minimizing what takes place in a pregnancy termination. Patients should be fully advised of risks and options to surgery. They should never be coerced into making a decision with insufficient data.

Everitt says that post-abortion stress syndrome has been debunked. Yet Susanne Babbel in Psychology Today says that the syndrome “is the name that has been given to the psychological aftereffects of abortion” based on post-traumatic stress disorder, and that “any event that causes trauma can indeed result in PTSD, and abortion is no exception.”

Everitt writes that “we can all agree that women should not be given medical misinformation.”

I hope she will consider this the next time she writes a misleading article about crisis pregnancy centers like ours, and promotes a culture where women are too weak to weigh medical consequences of elective procedures.

Marie Leatherby is executive director of the Sacramento Life Center, which runs the Sac Valley Pregnancy Clinic.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article15088757.html#storylink=cpy

NARAL: Crisis Pregnancy Centers ‘Bad for “Not Having Dr.s”, Bad for Getting Them’

Damned If You Don’t, Damned If You Do

E-Mails Reveal Maryland Government Officials Collaborating With NARAL To Shut Down Pro-Life Pregnancy Center

Seven Point Plan Suggests a National NARAL Initiative to Shut Down CPCs

Dustin Siggins | LifeSiteNews | January 15, 2015

Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request have revealed that Maryland government officials and activists with the state chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America have been working closely together on a legal effort to shut down a local pro-life pregnancy care center.

The emails have also revealed a seven-part plan developed by NARAL to shut down pro-life pregnancy care centers that could indicate a nationwide strategy.

“[Crisis Pregnancy Centers, CPCs] are rapidly medicalizing—consistently acquiring more medical equipment and staff. Requiring [CPCs] to disclose that they do not have medical personnel on staff [can] often backfire.…[The successful medicalizing by CPCs] detracts from our core objection to [CPCs]. It does not matter if [CPCs] hire doctors or house state-of-the-art equipment: they are still manipulating women with lies and misleading information.” — NARAL Maryland Chapter President Jodi Finkelstein, letter, to Mongomery County Council President Craig Rice

In 2010, Montgomery County passed an ordinance requiring Centro Tepeyac Silver Spring Women’s Center and other pro-life pregnancy care clinics to post signs stating that they did not have doctors on staff. The county claimed it wanted to prevent pro-life clinics from giving women misleading information.

Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Centro fought the ordinance, which did not apply to abortion clinics. On April 30, 2014, Montgomery County dropped its defense of the law after a third decision against it on March 7, in which U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasanow, a Clinton appointee, noted that the people who accused the centers of spreading “misinformation” were “universally volunteers from a pro-choice organization sent to investigate practices” at the centers.

The emails obtained by LifeSiteNews reveal that, unbeknownst to the public, Montgomery County dropped the case after conferring with NARAL. The county stopped defending the law the month after NARAL recommended that very action in a March 14, 2014 letter, sent a week after the judge permanently blocked the law.

“It is our hope that the Montgomery County Council (Council) will once again partner with us to ensure Montgomery Council citizens are aware of the misleading tactics used by crisis pregnancy centers,” Maryland’s NARAL chapter president, Jodi Finkelstein, wrote.

In the letter, sent by the county to LifeSiteNews along with other emails through a Freedom of Information Act request, Finkelstein “strongly” recommended that the county drop the case and implement seven other strategies.

Those strategies include:

  1. Prosecuting volunteers and employees of pregnancy care centers for “consumer protection violations”;
  2. Forbidding Centro from “participating in advertising” that county officials deem “untrue or misleading”;
  3. Allowing women who claim they were “harmed by limited-service pregnancy centers to collect monetary damages” from women’s centers;
  4. Denying taxpayer funding to crisis pregnancy centers;
  5. Instructing county officials not to refer women to CPCs for ultrasounds or to “very clearly differentiate the centers from legitimate medical providers”;
  6. Having the county undertake a “public awareness campaign”  against pregnancy centers; and
  7. The regulation of ultrasound practices.

“We are pleased to offer our continued assistance in any way as you move forward,” Finkelstein writes.

  • See a PDF file of the emails LifeSiteNews obtained here. Finkelstein’s letter is on pages 5-7.

“I am also asking … the County Council staff to research federal regulations … governing the use of ultrasounds.” – George Leventhal, Montgomery County Maryland Council President
George Leventhal, the current Montgomery County Council president, followed up on NARAL’s recommendations in an email March 16, 2014 asking staff to take action. He told Finkelstein he was “copying Uma Ahluwalia, director of the Department of Health and Human Services, on this reply with a request that she let me know whether county funds are currently supporting limited-service pregnancy centers and under what terms and conditions women are referred to such centers.”

“I am also asking Amanda Mahill of the County Council staff to research federal regulations referenced in your letter governing the use of ultrasounds,” he added. Continue reading

People Who Don’t Want Women to See Ultrasounds of their Babies – What Are They Thinking?

GeorgeLeventhalHe’s a really nice guy. George Leventhal, Montgomery County Maryland Council President, loves puppies. Presumably he likes babies…born ones, that is.

What motivates a nice guy like George, to want to impede women seeing their babies’ ultrasounds, what are his thought processes? Ultrasounds aren’t exactly cute, but people do get excited about them. We can’t presume to know George’s thinking, but it’s still important to try to understand what people who take his position have in mind. Continue reading

17-Year-Old Girl Forced to Have Abortion Against Her Will “No! Please Don’t Make Me!”

Lavonne Wilenken, former Planned Parenthood nurse practitioner, spoke with Douglas R. Scott, in  Bad Choices: A Look inside Planned Parenthood (1993):

Once when I was working in the family planning clinic where also the abortuary [abortion clinic] inhabited the same building, I was in a room with a counselor and a young woman. One of the family planning assistants came – burst in the room and said, “Please, you’ve got to come quick! She’s trying to back out of the procedure and everything is all ready!”

The counselor left hurriedly down the hall and I followed to see exactly what was going on and what I saw in the hall was the counselor, a 17-year-old girl and her aunt, dragging her into the room as she was hollering, “No, I don’t want to go! Please don’t make me! Please don’t make me do this! I really don’t want to do this!”

They very hurriedly shoved her in the room where the procedure was to take place and slammed the door and the counselor came out afterwards with a sort of a, a peaceful smiling look on his face, and I knew what had happened. I knew that they had aborted her against her will.

Sixty-Four Percent (64%) of Aborting Moms “Felt Pressured By Others” (217 sample population)

64Percent217MomsFeltPressureToAbort

MedSciMonitor20041010SR5-16

Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women. Vincent M. Rue et al. Med Sci Monit, 2004; 10(10): SR5-16

Pope Francis Against the ‘Innovators’

chiesaespressonline

The Closed Door of Pope Francis

by Sandro Magister | Translated by Matthew Sherry

Since the end of the 2014 synod, Francis has spoken dozens of times on abortion, divorce, and homosexuality. But he hasn’t said a single word more in support of the “openness” demanded by the innovators

ROME, May 11, 2015 – The second and last session of the synod on the family is approaching, and the temperature of the discussion keeps going up.

The latest uproar is over an onslaught of the German bishops, who now take as a given, in the “cultural context” of their local Church, substantial changes of doctrine and pastoral practice in matters of divorce and homosexuality.

Until the synod of October 2014, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had repeatedly and in various ways shown encouragement for “openness” in matters of homosexuality and second marriages, each time with great fanfare in the media. Cardinal Kasper explicitly said that he had “agreed” with the pope on his explosive talk at the consistory.

Synod battle goes back to the betrayal of Pope Paul VI on contraception, says Polish archbishopBut during that synod the resistance to the new paradigms showed itself to be much more strong and widespread than expected, and determined the defeat of the innovators. The reckless “relatio post disceptationem” halfway through the assembly was demolished by the criticism and gave way to a much more traditional final report.

In accompanying this unfolding of the synod Pope Francis also contributed to the turning point himself, among other ways by rounding out the commission charged with writing the final report – until then under the brazen dominion of the innovators – by adding personalities of opposing viewpoints.

But it is above all from the end of the synod on that Francis has taken a new course with respect to the one that he initially traveled.

From the end of 2014 until today, there has not been even one more occasion on which he has given the slightest support to the paradigms of the innovators.

The reckless “relatio post disceptationem” … was demolished … and gave way to a much more traditional final report.On the contrary. He has intensified his remarks on all the most controversial questions connected to the synodal theme of the family: contraception, abortion, divorce, second marriages, homosexual marriage, “gender” ideology. And every time he has spoken of them as a “son of the Church” – as he loves to call himself – with ironclad fidelity to tradition and without swerving by a millimeter from what was said before him by Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI.

Read More…