Thomas A. Droleskey
To defend the honor of the Mother of God is not an option for a Catholic. It is a duty. Every Catholic has the obligation to defend the honor of Our Lady, in whose Virginal and Immaculate Womb the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed His Sacred Humanity by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, at the Annunciation, which we will commemorate with great solemnity tomorrow, March 25 (the date that small "t" tradition teaches us is that upon which God created the world and the date of the Crucifixion; some believe that it will be the date on which the end of the world occurs and that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ comes to judge the living and the dead).
As one who obtained his Master of Arts in political science (major field: American Government; minor fields: comparative government and international relations) from the Department of Government and International Studies at the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana, on January 10, 1974, I feel a most special obligation to defend the honor of Our Lady as it is being impugned at the university named for her, the university from which I received my master's degree.
I have done this in the past as the University of Notre Dame's Department of Theology, then chaired by Hartford's Mark of Apostasy, Father Richard P. McBrien, played host to then New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo and as the administration of the university permitted the "queer film festival" to make its debut there on February 11, 2004 (two different articles of mine, one of which is pasted at the end of this commentary, appeared on The Remnant site at the time).
I will do so again now in light of the fact that the completely pro-abortion President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, has been invited to deliver the commencement address to the graduates of the University of Notre Dame on May 17, 2009.
No thought would ever be given by "Father" John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of the University of Notre Dame since July 1, 2005, to invite a President of the United States of America who was an open supporter of the racialist ideology of "white supremacism."
No thought would ever ben given by "Father" John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of the University of Notre Dame since July 1, 2005, to invite a President of the United States of America who was tainted in any way, whether legitimate or illegitimate, by the whiff of an accusation of being "anti-Semitic."
No thought would ever ben given by "Father" John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of the University of Notre Dame since July 1, 2005, to invite a President of the United States of America who expressed a belief in the conclusions reached by historical revisionists concerning the nature and the extent of the crimes committed by agents of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler during World War II.
Indeed, the University of Notre Dame is jumping on the "bash Bishop Williamson" bandwagon by holding a conference on Holocaust Denial in the 21st Century: New Forms of Antisemitism on the Feast of the Annunciation tomorrow evening, March 25, 2009. Those who deny the one and only Holocaust, that offered by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in Spirit and in Truth in atonement for our sins are featured speakers on Our Lady's campus that is so open to the likes of pro-aborts such as Obama.
Father John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. would never invite a President of the United States of America who believed in historical revisionism about the crimes of the Third Reich. Those crimes would never be relegated to simply "one" issue among many, nor would it be said that such a president had "other things" to teach us. Such a president would be shunned entirely. Not so those who believe in baby-killing and who corrupt policy here and abroad in light of this daily warfare against God. Those who are at war with God by means of supporting one of the four crimes that cry out to Him for vengeance can ever be an instrument of the common temporal good domestically or "peace" internationally.
No thought would ever ben given by "Father" John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of the University of Notre Dame since July 1, 2005, to invite a President of the United States of America who expressed support for the repeal of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and who was an open supporter of invidious racial segregation under cover of the civil law.
No thought would ever ben given by "Father" John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of the University of Notre Dame since July 1, 2005, to invite a President of the United States of America who embraced sedevacantism as the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church and that it applies in these our times.
"Father" John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of the University of Notre Dame since July 1, 2005, has not a moment's hesitation, however, to invite a President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, who is more than an "academic" supporter of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. Barack Hussein Obama has voted in support of the killing of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs under cover of the civil law as a member of the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. He has in the past sixty-three days elevated his level of responsibility before God for this sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance by signing Executive Orders to authorize the use of the tax dollars paid by American citizens to the Federal government of the United States of America to mystically dismember Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of preborn children in their mothers' wombs. Barack Hussein Obama has the blood of the innocent dripping on his hands.
"Father" Jenkins has in fact protested in the face of objections to his plans to invite the pro-death President of the United States of America that Barack Hussein Obama has "worthwhile" things to say about "other" issues," that it would be opposed to "academic freedom" and to the American concept of "freedom of speech" to deny him a forum at the University of Notre Dame. I would respond by pointing out that Our Lady, the Mother of God, would never provide a "forum" for anyone who supports the mystical dismemberment of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the persons of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs under cover of the civil law. It is that simple. Obama's being black, yellow, green, red or turquoise has nothing at all to do with the fact that he is an open enemy of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. This is real, real simple.
Our Lady, whose perfect Fiat at the Annunciation made possible our salvation as her Divine Son made Himself the Prisoner of the tabernacle of her Virginal and Immaculate Womb for nine months, placing Himself in absolute and unconditional solidarity with every child in every mother's womb no matter the condition of the conception or the condition of the child conceived, takes a dim view of those who dissent from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, as she made clear to Pierre Port-Combet on March 25, 1656:
Then the Lady said, "Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?"
Pierre mumbled an answer. The Lady became more serious, "Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them."
Pierre was filled with sorrow and shame and moved away from the Lady. Suddenly realizing that he was being rude, Pierre stepped closer to her, but she had moved away and was already near the little hill. He ran after her begging, "Please stop and listen to me. I want to apologize to you and I want you to help me!"
The Lady stopped and turned. By the time Pierre caught up to her, she was floating in the air and was already disappearing from sight. Suddenly, Pierre realized that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary had appeared to him! He fell to his knees and cried buckets of tears, "Jesus and Mary I promise you that I will change my life and become a good Catholic. I am sorry for what I have done and I beg you please, to help me change my life…"
On August 14, 1656, Pierre became very sick. An Augustinian priest came to hear his confession and accepted him back into the Catholic Church. Pierre received Holy Communion the next day on the Feast of the Assumption. After Pierre returned to the Catholic Faith, many others followed him. His son and five daughters came back to the Catholic Church as well as many Calvinists and Protestants. Five weeks later on September 8, 1656, Pierre died and was buried under the miraculous willow tree, just as he had asked. (Our Lady of the Willow Tree.)
It is one thing to sin and to be sorry, to seek out the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer at the hands of a true bishop or a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin unrepentantly,r worse yet to promote it under the cover of civil law and in every aspect of what passes for popular culture.
Sin--yours, mine, everyone's--is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer unspeakably in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death.
Sin--yours, mine, everyone's--is what caused those Seven Swords of Sorrow to be thrust through and through the Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother, after whom the University of Notre Dame du Lac is named.
Sin--yours, mine, everyone's--is what wounds the Church Militant on earth and thus sows the seeds of personal and social disorder.
No one but no one who promotes grievous sins under cover of the civil law is a friend of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ or of His Most Blessed Mother. Such a person must be the object of our prayers for his conversion. He has no place addressing anyone about anything on a campus that purports to be Catholic as he believes in the exact opposite of what was written by the late Silvio Cardinal Antoniano in the Sixteenth Century:
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity.
"Father" Jenkins, do you believe that the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means is repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity? Do you? If you do believe this, "Father" Jenkins, how is it possible for one who believes in and supports and makes possible the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means to be an instrument of "true temporal peace and tranquility"? By what stretch of logic can one claim that Barack Hussein Obama's support for abortion does not arouse the wrath of God and is indeed an impediment to the pursuit of the common temporal good as it must be undertaken in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven in the company of Our Lady, Saint Joseph, and all of the angels and the saints?
What about "academic freedom?" What about the American concept of "freedom of speech?" Here is a newsflash, "Father" Jenkins: the Catholic Church does not believe in the American concepts of "academic freedom" and "freedom of speech." No one has a right from God to disseminate error openly and to put into doubt even one article contained in the Deposit of Faith that He has entrusted entirely to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
Pope Gregory XVI made this clear in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
Oh, yes, I know. I know. This is not taught by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles of the modern civil state, including the United States of America. The fact that the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism reject the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church reiterated by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos and by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, is one of the proofs of its apostate nature. Saint Augustine, however, had it entirely correct when he wrote:
"But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error."
It does not matter that President Barack Hussein Obama is not going to the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana, to speak about baby-killing. A man who supports baby-killing is incapable of being an instrument to advance the common temporal good undertaken in light of man's Last End as he does indeed believe things that are repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity. Such a man has nothing to offer Catholics unless the daily mystical dismemberment of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs is just "one" issue among many.
Alas, the daily slaughter of the preborn is not "one" issue among many. It is the overriding moral issue of our day about which no one can remain indifferent or aloof. Pope Pius XI, writing in Casti Connubii, minced no words when he spoke of the eternal fate that awaited anyone in public life, Catholic or not, who supported the direct, intentional killing of any innocent human life under cover of the civil law:
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)
Was Pope Pius XI wrong, "Father" Jenkins?
Unfortunately, however, my Master's alma mater has indeed taken an aloof view of the life issues for a very long time. The University of Notre Dame du Lac takes money every year from the rabidly pro-contraception, pro-abortion Ford Foundation, which has been funding various programs and projects at the university for over fifty-five years. This is blood money. And it is this blood money that talks on the campus of Our Lady, whose Immaculate Heart is indeed so sorrowful that a university named for her dishonors her as it honors pro-aborts and as it takes money from a foundation that seeks to overturn laws in the Catholic countries of Latin America that provide some legal protection to the innocent preborn.
The directors of the Ford Foundation are very proud of its support for baby-killing, as can be seen in this page from its website:
Increasing their understanding of their sexuality, and reducing their vulnerability to unsafe practices and treatments. The Cairo office has supported the dissemination of health information and the publication of an Arabic health guide for women, similar to the U.S. volume Our Bodies, Ourselves. The Brazil office has helped the SOS-Corpo Women's Health Group hold workshops on women's health and sexuality and to organize self-help groups among adolescents and women in poor neighborhoods of Recife. The group's educational methods—which include producing skits and modeling with clay—have been successful in engaging women, their partners, and children in discussions of health and human reproduction. Members of the group have increasingly been called upon to advise other community groups and government health programs on health services for poor women.
The Foundation has also devoted attention to the controversial problems of freedom of reproductive choice and access to safe and sanitary abortion services. Safe, accessible abortion services are essential to the health and economic security of women, especially low-income, disadvantaged women, many of whom are single mothers with dependent children. Although Foundation support for abortion-related activities dates back to 1973, when the Preterm Institute received a grant for disseminating standards for safe abortion services, special appropriation funds enabled the Foundation to expand the range of grantees and to try a variety of approaches. Grants have been made to encourage dialogue among those who occupy the large middle ground between polarized extremes, to strengthen the voice of groups such as Catholics for a Free Choice, and to produce a major study of the assumptions of opposing groups, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Kristin Luker. Fewer abortion-related grants emerged in the field offices, with the important exception of Bangladesh, which provided support to the Bangladesh Women's Health Coalition for educating and training providers of menstrual-regulation services. (Created Equal: A Report on Ford Foundation Women's Programs)
It was in 1973, the year that the pro-contraception and pro-"population control" Ford Foundation began its support for baby-killing in the United States of America and around the world, that its directors voted to fund a "civil rights" center at the University of Notre Dame, whose infamous president at the time was Father Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C., a former Chairman of the United States Civil Rights Commission and a leader in the movement to "secularize" Catholic colleges so as to make them more 'respectable" in the eyes of the leaders of private, nondenominational institutions such as those in the "Ivy League." It did not matter to Father Hesburgh that the Ford Foundation had come out in support of baby-killing. He accepted the money and established the "civil rights" center (on which I was asked by a constitutional law professor at the University of Notre Dame to serve; I attended one meeting, which centered around "reparations" for slavery, whereupon I resigned):
The Ford Foundation has awarded a $750,000 three-year grant to the Center for Civil and Human Rights (CCHR) at the University of Notre Dame to conduct academic, research and advocacy projects on the subject of accountability for gross human rights abuses worldwide.
Long recognized as a leader in this area of human rights, the CCHR will dedicate the Ford Foundation funding to analysis of issues such as truth and justice in transitions to democracy, universal jurisdiction, and international criminal justice, including support for an International Criminal Court.
More specifically, the grant will enhance Notre Dame's place as a primary research center on human rights accountability by increasing the University's collection of library materials on the topic, drawing invited practitioners with experience in the field to campus as visiting fellows, and placing attorneys and other professionals in internships with tribunals, truth commissions and appropriate nongovernmental organizations.
The center also will organize conferences, publish the results of scientific research, and attract to its master's and doctoral programs lawyers from around the world who demonstrate a strong commitment to a serious study of all aspects of accountability.
The grant to Notre Dame is one of the first awarded by the Ford Foundation in its "Enforcing Human Rights" initiative, which features a new International Center for Transitional Justice that will collaborate with the CCHR and other similar centers to provide advisory services to governments and civil society. One early example is a recent trip by Juan Mendez, director of the CCHR, and three other international experts to Peru, where there are plans for a truth commission.
It was a grant from the Ford Foundation that led to the creation of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at Notre Dame in 1973. The center initially focused on civil rights issues in the Untied States, but in recent years has expanded its work to the international human rights arena.
Over several decades, the Ford Foundation has been a major force supporting the field of human rights worldwide. An independent, nonprofit grant-making organization, it has headquarters in New York and offices in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Russia. More information is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fordfound.org.(Ford Foundation grant supports study of human rights)
What about the human rights of the innocent preborn? Such rights are not recognized by the directors of the Ford Foundation who fund various projects and programs at the University of Notre Dame:
The Ford Foundation is another key supporter of anti-life extremism in Latin America.
To Mexico, the foundation sent:
- $350,000 from 1999 to 2000 to Mujer Z Modem, a feminist pro-abortion group.
- $100,000 in 2000 to Communication and Information for Women, a feminist news agency.
- $300,000 in 2000 to CFFC "to build a pro-choice alliance in Mexico by expanding the Catholic constituency for reproductive rights."
- $434,000 from 2000 to 2001 to CFFC for additional pro-abortion activities.
- $553,000 in 1999 and 2001 to the Executive Secretariat of the National Feminist Network for Health and Reproductive Rights.
- $286,000 from 1999 to 2000 to CFFC's Brazil branch.
- $225,000 in 2001 to the Latin American and Caribbean Women's Health Network.
- $145,000 in 2001 to Isis International, Chile's leading feminist pro-abortion group.
- $383,000 for 1999 and 2001 to the Centro de la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristán (Flora Tristan Center for Peruvian Women), Peru's main feminist pro-abortion organization.
In addition, the Ford Foundation channeled $772,000 from 1999 to 2001 to the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women's Rights (CLADEM), a feminist pro-abortion organization with branches in every Latin American country.
To enable someone to have an abortion is a serious enough crime. But to use force and fraud to compel an entire hemisphere to kill its unborn children is nothing short of genocide. When such money could be used to do good for so many people, it is simply a tragedy that American foundations are bent on using our country's great wealth to subsidize the slaughter of Latin America's youth. (American Foundations: Funding Pro-Abortion Extremists in Latin America)
What does this matter to "Father" John Jenkins and his associates at the University of Notre Dame du Lac who take blood money from the Ford Foundation every year?
What does it matter to "Father" John Jenkins and his associates at the University of Notre Dame du Lac that the Ford Foundation funds the oxymoronic "Catholics for a Free Choice" organization that supports the destruction of the innocent preborn under cover of law?
In promoting its political agenda, one of the world’s largest philanthropic agencies has made itself the biggest single financial contributor to a self-described Roman Catholic group dedicated to vigorously fighting the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and birth control.
For more than 20 years, the Ford Foundation and Catholics For A Free Choice (CFFC) have forged a strong political and financial alliance that sacrifices the lives of the unborn to a discredited view of international economic development.
Founded in 1973, CFFC has been led since 1982 by Frances Kissling, a feminist who has actively promoted abortion for more than three decades. Before joining CFFC’s board in 1979, Kissling opened an abortion clinic in New York in 1970, and in 1976, founded the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion clinics.
Kissling, who grew up in a working-class Roman Catholic family and left her convent at the age of 20, revealed her feelings about the church to Mother Jones Magazine in 1989: “I spent 20 years looking for a government that I could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic Church.”
CFFC’s uncompromising support for abortion directly opposes the ancient position of the Catholic Church -- and all of Christendom. The Roman Catholic Church’s catechism states that the embryo “must be treated from conception as a person…must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.”
Catholic opposition to abortion is uncompromising. “The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life,” the catechism states.
Nevertheless, Kissling advances her agenda with Ford’s support. One campaign involves promoting abortion and contraception in Latin America. (CFFC has offices in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico.) Another campaign seeks to downgrade the Vatican’s status at the United Nations from that of a permanent observer to that of a non-governmental organization, which cannot vote or block United Nations decisions.
CFFC even hopes to force Roman Catholic hospitals to offer abortion and contraception; Ford helped fund a briefing paper detailing how mergers with Roman Catholic hospitals could threaten the availability of such services.
Ford supports CFFC more than any other group does. The foundation provided more than $2 million of the $8 million in grants CFFC received between 1980 and 1994, including a two-year grant for $775,000 in 1994. Since that time, the proportion of Ford’s support for CFFC dramatically increased. Between 1996 and 2000, CFFC raised $10 million, with $4.4 million coming from Ford grants.
Funding from such agencies as Ford keeps CFFC alive, as the group’s income records for 1993 demonstrate. That year, CFFC declared $1,530,636 in total income. Of that total, $1,501,412 came from various foundation grants. Only $29,224 came from other sources, and $17,876 was interest from cash accounts and savings.
Grant funding becomes pivotal for CFFC in light of decreasing revenue from subscriptions to the group’s magazine, Conscience. Subscription income fell from $3,427 in 1989 to $1,542 in 1993.
Ford supports a wide variety of CFFC projects. In 1982, the foundation gave CFFC $19,560 to study what the Foundation Grant Index (FGI) called, “effects of religious upbringing and religious attitudes on (the) decision to have (an) abortion.”
Two years later, a Ford grant of $25,000 created a “fellowship program in journalism and moral theology dealing with…contraception and abortion.”
In 1991, Ford issued a $300,000 grant good for two-and-a-half years. As part of that grant, $150,000 went for “family planning and reproductive health programs in developing countries,” and $50,000 went for “education on reproductive health and rights in Latin America,” as reported by the FGI.
Ford’s concern with “reproductive health” extends far beyond CFFC. In 1993, Ford approved $22 million in grants to various organizations promoting population control, especially in poor countries.
But here are the critical questions: Among the endeavors it could support, why does Ford direct such resources toward “family planning” (that is, abortion) and what role does CFFC play in Ford’s efforts?
A bit of history will help. The roots of Ford’s interest extend to the first decade following World War II. Secular organizations began worrying about the possibility that unchecked population growth in poor countries would stifle economic development and increase competition for natural resources, thereby accelerating international tensions. (Others -- including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger -- were outspoken racist eugenicists.)
That concern revived interest in the theories of the 18th century English economist, Thomas Malthus. Malthus believed that since population tends to increase faster than the food supply, nations must control their birth rates to avoid worldwide disaster.
Malthus viewed famine and war not only as inevitable consequences of overpopulation, but even as necessary means to limit growth if nations refused to do so. In Malthus’ economy, such tragedies reduce the number of poor people, who tend to have more children than they can afford, thus making overall conditions worse.
Agricultural improvements in the 19th century refuted Malthus’ assertions. Nevertheless, various postwar books and articles began addressing such issues as environmental protection and international peace in Malthusian terms. A bestseller from 1948, Road to Survival, even cast Japanese imperialism as the result of a costly pursuit of resources stemming from Japan’s refusal to control its birth rate.
The author, William Vogt, argued that growing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union would be reduced, and war avoided, if both nations pursued aggressive birth control policies: “If the United States had spent $2 billion developing…a contraceptive instead of the atomic bomb, it would have contributed far more to our national security.”
In 1952, Ford helped found the Population Council, designed to create an international network to promote population control. Ford made its first grant of $600,000 to the council in 1954 and followed with grants of $1 million in 1957 and $1.4 million in 1959.
But standing in the way of this Malthusian approach to world progress and harmony is the Catholic Church. John M. Swomley, professor emeritus of social ethics at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri, expresses the prevailing attitude toward Malthus and Catholicism in a 1997 article for Christian Ethics Today. That article criticized the Reagan administration’s decision to remove financial support for international “family planning” programs, including the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, after consultations with the Vatican. Swomley wrote:
The consequences are enormous. The editor of the National Catholic Reporter, in an editorial in the June 19, 1992, issue, said, “I feel the church is causing great harm to the planet, making millions suffer unnecessarily...Among today’s 5.2 billion, as many as one-fifth, mostly children, are undernourished. About 1 million die from hunger or hunger-related causes yearly.”
Moreover, those hunger-related problems have led to massive economic migrations which, in turn, have led to population wars such as those in Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, and in India where “nine or ten million refugees from East Pakistan were driven out.”
CFFC, therefore, provides a useful counterweight to the Vatican’s position in public debate. Joseph O’Rourke, a former Jesuit and president of CFFC, told the conservative National Catholic Register in 1984, “CFFC really was just kept alive for years because the mainline pro-choice movement wanted a Catholic vote.”
But does CFFC embrace a neo-Malthusian perspective? Barbara Crossette, writing for Conscience, provides the answer in an article that otherwise criticizes the arbitrary brutality of Chinese population control:
(I)n human terms…enough diverging numbers…can be linked to the social benefits of China's sharply reduced population growth and India's slower progress. Infant mortality in China, according to United Nations figures, is 36.5 deaths in every 1,000 births. In India, there are 64.7 deaths per 1,000 births. Life expectancy in China now stands at 71 years; in India it is 64.
Large numbers in a poor country put great strain on a family's resources as well as a nation's. In India, nearly a quarter of the population is undernourished, with nearly half the children under five already underweight and undersized. In China, United Nations figures show a national malnutrition rate of nine percent, with about 10 percent of children underweight and 17 percent undersized.
Support for neo-Malthusian ideology gives the lie to CFFC’s advocacy of “free choice.” After all, if choice were the ultimate criterion, the way a woman exercises that choice, through abortion, adoption or child-rearing, would be secondary. Not so, wrote Marjorie Reilly Maguire, one of CFFC’s founders, to the liberal National Catholic Reporter in 1995:
Various personal experiences with CFFC have led me to believe that its agenda is no longer simply to defend the legality of a woman’s abortion choice…I now see CFFC’s agenda as the promotion of abortion, the defense of every abortion decision as a good, moral choice and the related agenda persuading society to cast off any moral constraints about sexual behavior. I don’t think this is a Catholic or pro-woman agenda….
It seems that the only acceptable “choice” for CFFC and its backers is one that reinforces a particular theory of population control – a discredited theory that some of the world’s wealthiest foundations still hold to be in vogue in an era of zero population growth – at the expense of the unborn. That they do so in the name of the Roman Catholic Church is sacriligious. Yet the Ford Foundation continues to pour the funds into CFFC, because CFFC renders Ford an invaluable service: a war by proxy with the Pope and his church. (FrontPage Magazine)
The authors of this important piece of research obviously accepted the "legitimacy" of the conciliar "pontiffs." However, it is these conciliar "pontiffs" who have done nothing but flap their jawbones occasionally to talk about the Catholic "character" of universities and colleges which receive funding from organizations such as the Ford Foundation whose directors promote baby-killing with an evangelical zeal. No conciliar "interdict" has been placed on these universities and colleges, which make warfare against the Faith as their administrators and professors frequently go beyond the approved apostasies and novelties of conciliarism to plant the seeds of doubt and unbelief in the souls of the students who believe, despite all of the empirical evidence that has been amassed in the past forty years, that these institutions represent the Catholic Church, which, of course, they do not.
Readers will note that the Ford Foundation was instrumental in establishing the Population Council in 1952. This did not deter administrators of the University of Notre Dame at the time from accepting grant monies from the Ford Foundation:
Notre Dame University received a grant of $57,500 for faculty research in East European affairs and the advanced research training of a number of graduate students.
The grant, extending over five years, will help in the acquisition of special research materials, provide a small number of research assistantships, and permit additions to the present teaching program. (Ford Foundation Annual Report 1954 | Archives | Ford Foundation; see also Ford Foundation Annual Report 1956 and Ford Foundation Annual Report 1963 for proof of the University of Notre Dame's blithe association with a foundation that was funding the evil of "population control" that paved the way for the acceptance of the slaughter of the innocent preborn. This association continues to this day despite the facts one can find by clicking this link: Foundation Giving to Contraception and Abortion.)
A protege of the Ford Foundation was appointed by United Masonic Nations Organization Ban Ki-moon to become that body's "high commissioner for human rights:"
NEW YORK - United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected to name abortion advocate Navanethem "Navi" Pillay of South Africa as the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) this week, despite reservations from the United States.
According to the New York Times, the United States has privately raised concerns about Pillay's nomination to the top human rights post because of her strong support for abortion. Pillay is a founding member of the international non-governmental organization Equality Now, a group that has spearheaded campaigns for abortion access in Poland and Nepal. Pillay remains on the board of the organization which receives major funding from pro-abortion foundations, including George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation.(UN Secretary General Nominates Abortion Advocate)
Yes, the administrators of the University of Notre Dame, a place where God is offended daily in the "offerings" of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and where the Faith is assaulted in one classroom after another, recognizing that there are exceptions here and there to this assault, have a long and bloody track-record of associating with pro-aborts. It makes perfect sense for them to invite the fully and unapologetically pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama to address the graduating classes of 2009. After all, the University of Notre Dame gave then President James Earl Carter, Jr., a forum to give his "we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism" commencement address on May 22, 1977. Why not give a forum to a Communist pro-abort on May 17, 2009?
Catholicism has been eradicated from the hearts and souls and minds of many of those who are administrators of the universities and colleges that trade on their once Catholic identities but which are now on the "cutting edge," if you will, of the doctrinal and liturgical and moral revolutions of conciliarism. The bankruptcy of the sensus Catholicus is such that "Father" John Jenkins believes that he has found a "balance" between "academic freedom" and "Catholicism" by permitting the "queer film festival" to proceed under other names (Gay and Lesbian Film: Filmmakers, Narratives, Spectatorships. Qlassics: Reimagining Sexuality and the Self in Recent American Cinema) without recognizing for a single moment that no human being is to base their self-identity on sinful behavior or inclinations. Such a thought is totally foreign to "Father" Jenkins.
We can defend the honor of Our Lady by praying extra Rosaries of reparation tomorrow, the Feast of the Annunciation, and on May 17, 2009, the day that the fully pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama will speak at the university that bears her holy name. Our Lady does not honor pro-aborts no matter what position of public trust they may happen to hold. Neither does the Catholic Church.
We must continue to cleave exclusively to true bishops and to true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its apostate "officials," men who are most casual in their acceptance of outrages that have become commonplace in their false church that gives so much offense to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to His Most Blessed Mother.
We must also recognize that our sins have contributed mightily to the worsening of the state of the Church Militant and to the state of the world. We have much for which to make reparation, especially those of us who were slow to embrace the truth that those who defect from the Faith expel themselves from the Church and cannot hold office within her legitimately. Our Rosaries of reparation today may help to plant the seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant at some point in the future. We have sixteen days more to go until Maundy Thursday. There is still time to intensify our prayers, our sacrifices and our mortifications as we fast from food and other legitimate pleasures to prepare more fully for a deep immersion into the mysteries of our Redemption during the Paschal Triduum.
Our Lady will not abandon us at the hour of death if we have attempted to defend her honor during our lives. May the occasion of the scandal caused by the invitation extended to a fully pro-abortion public official to speak at her university give us cause to pray more fervently and to make many more sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary with joy and with love.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us, especially on your feast day today!
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
2004 Article on the Aftermath of the "Queer Film Festival"
As though the blasphemy being committed against Our Lady at her school, the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana, by the celebration of perverse evil this week is not enough, my effort to place a half-page advertisement in the Notre Dame Observer newspaper to ask Catholics to make acts of reparation for this outrage was rejected.
It was at the suggestion of Mike Chabot, who organizes the annual Saint Joseph Conference held in South Bend, Indiana, that I contacted the advertising offices of the Observer around 3:30 p.m., Eastern time, on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, February 11, 2004. No one was in the office. Thus, I left a message for a return phone call. A Bill Bonner returned the call, whereupon I explained to him the nature of the advertisement. He said that I should prepare the advertisement but that the final decision would be made by the editor-in-chief.
Thus, I composed the following copy for the advertisement:
“I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION”
“Thus spoke the Mother of God to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in 1858, just four years after Blessed Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the doctrine of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception.
“Our Lady was preserved from all stain of sin from the first moment of her conception so that she would be the singular vessel of devotion in which the Word would become Flesh by the power of the Holy Ghost to dwell amongst us and to redeem us on the Wood of the Holy Cross.
“Our Lady saw the horror of what our sins did to her Divine Son in His Sacred Humanity as he hung on the Cross on Calvary on Good Friday. Her Immaculate Heart was pierced with the sword of sorrow that had been prophesied by the aged Simeon in the Temple at the Presentation.
“Cooperating with the graces won for us on Calvary and relying upon our sinless Blessed Mother’s maternal intercession, we are called to be free from all stain of sin in this life. It is thus an evil thing to persist in sin unrepentantly, worse yet to celebrate it publicly as something noble and virtuous. It is an act of utter blasphemy to connect the Holy Name of Mary with one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, as is being done this very week on the campus of the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana.
“To make reparation for the ‘film festival’ celebrating perverse evil on Our Lady’s campus, Christ or Chaos, Inc., is calling upon all Catholics of good will to pray an extra set of Sorrowful Mysteries of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary each and every day since this celebration of perversity is taking place on her campus.”
I concluded the advertisement with the web address for The Remnant so that readers could look at my full commentary, which was posted on this site on February 10, 2004.
Mr. Bonner e-mailed me in the early evening hours, Eastern time, to tell me that I should have a decision on the advertisement, which was meant to be run in the February 13, 2004, issue of the Notre Dame Observer, within twenty-four hours. It did not take that long. This is the response I receive shortly around 11:30 p.m., Eastern time (8:30 p.m., Pacific time), from a Maura Cenedella:
“Dr. Droleskey, After reviewing your ad, the General Board has decided that we will be unable to allow it to appear as an advertisement in The Observer. We do not accept advertisements that are political in nature, and yours was certainly politically charged. However, you can direct opinion pieces to the Viewpoint section of The Observer (firstname.lastname@example.org), and they may be able to run your commentary. Thank you very much and good luck, Maura Cenedella, Advertising Manager.”
My return e-mail to her, penned immediately upon receipt of her note, was very terse:
“To Maura Cenedella: To defend the honor of the Mother of God is politically charged? Saints have shed their blood for the honor of Our Lady. Be assured that an appropriate commentary will be written on this decision of yours that will be widely circulated in Catholic circles. I have written a letter to the editor of your viewpoint section. I should not be shocked by how something spiritual is termed political. However, I guess it is still a good thing that a man in his fifties can be shocked by the failure of Our Lady's children to come to her defense when the thing that caused her Divine Son to suffer on the wood of the Cross is glorified on a campus under her own patronage. May God have mercy on us all. Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Queen, Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.”
Well, this was not the end of the matter. Oh, no. The editor-in-chief, a Mr. Andrew Soukup, sent me an e-mail which I received around 6:30 a.m., Pacific time, on Thursday, February 12, 2004.
“Thomas, I am writing to you to clarify our decision to not accept your advertisement. The Observer routinely rejects advertisements espousing a political perspective and instead offers those who wish to express their Viewpoint the opportunity to write a letter to the editor. We followed this policy with you.
“This decision is rooted in an unwillingness to accept money used to express an ideology to avoid confusion that, by accepting payment for an ideologically motivated advertisement, The Observer is implying that it supports that Viewpoint. The nature of our responsibility as journalists is to ensure that we are objective, but that we also allow individuals or groups to express their viewpoints to encourage dialogue. That is why we encourage you to submit the content you would have wanted to place as an advertisement as a letter to the editor. Please feel free to call me if you have any more questions. Sincerely, Andrew Soukup, Editor in Chief, The Observer.”
This was my response to Mr. Soukup:
“Dear Mr. Soukup: First of all, I was taught in grammar school in the 1950s that we address people, especially elders, we did not know by their formal titles. The use of informal address with people who are not our friends or relatives is but one of many examples of how the world has become de-Catholicized. The title, though it means nothing in Heaven, is a sign of respect and may only be removed upon the invitation of the one who is being addressed.
“Second, I find your explanation lacking all credibility. Does The New York Times endorse all of the paid advertisements that it accepts for publication? Did USAToday, which is militantly pro-abortion, do so when it accepted a full page advertisement from Priests for Life a few years ago? A paid advertisement is simply that: a paid advertisement. I dare say, Mr. Soukup, that I, who have been in Catholic journalism for a long time, do not need a lecture from you about journalistic practices. If anything, a Catholic journalist has the obligation to be faithful to the fullness of Truth Incarnate, not "open" to the spread of error. This is something that Popes I have addressed.
“Third, the Catholic Faith is not a matter of ideology: it is a matter of Revealed Truth, Deposited in the Mystical Bride of Christ by her Divine Bridegroom, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man. The text of my advertisement was spiritual, not ideological. Only at a campus known for attacks upon the Deposit of Faith by faculty members and priests can an appeal for reparations to the dishonor given the Mother of God by the promotion of sin be considered a matter of ideology.
“Fourth, it would be interesting to know whether you have run any stories on the "Queer Film Festival" or have run any advertisements for that display of perversity. And if you doubt that this is a display of perversity, I would suggest you consult such "ideological" sources as Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 1, Verses 18-32) and many commentaries of the saints, including Saint Peter Canisius and Saint Thomas Aquinas.
“Fifth, I have submitted the text of my advertisement as a letter to your paper, referencing the website where my protracted commentary can be found. My only purpose in having anything printed in the newspaper of my master's alma mater is to invite Catholics of good will to pray an extra set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary to make reparation for the outrage taking place on the campus at present. Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Queen, Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.”
As if this exchange was not enough for the folks at the Observer, I received the following e-mail from the assistant advertising manager, a Mr. Matt Lutz this morning, February 12, 2004:
“To whom it may concern: In regards to your wish to place advertising material in The Observer, the following is the exact contractual obligation each potential advertiser subscribes to when attempting to place: ‘. All advertising is subject to the approval of The Observer. The General Board reserves the right to review any advertisement deemed untrue, inflammatory, and/or controversial by either the Editor-in-Chief or the Advertising Manager’.
“This includes precluding the ad from appearing in the paper if any of the criteria above are determined to exist. Also, I note that you clearly state in your email that you would wait on the editor's decision and thank us for "considering the advertisement". This wording reestablishes that even you are unsure if it is appropriate to appear. Hopefully this clears things a little for you. Matt Lutz, Asst. Advertising Manager.”
This was my response to Mr. Lutz, which was sent to him around 3:00 p.m., Eastern time:
“To Mr. Lutz: These e-mails from you folks at The Observer just get more and more insulting. Now I am reduced to a "To whom it may concern"?
“Contrary to what you assert in your e-mail, I have never been at all unsure as to whether my advertisement was fit for publication, only unsure as to whether a paper published at the University of Notre Dame, a campus known for its promotion of theological dissent and liturgical irreverence, would accept my advertisement.
“Nice try, Mr. Lutz. However, I have never harbored any doubt as to the fitting nature of my advertisement, which was an exhortation to prayer to make reparation for the promotion of perverse sins on the campus named for the Mother of God, whose Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart was pierced by the sword of sorrow caused by each one of our sins. My awaiting the "editor's decision" meant that I would hold my rhetorical fire until I had heard back from the Observer. It did not mean anything close to what you have inferred so mistakenly‑‑or perhaps so self-servingly.
“I repeat: has the Observer given any publicity to-or accepted any advertising for-the Queer Film Festival now taking place at the University of Notre Dame? The answer to that question would be most telling.
“You folks seem to have been shifting grounds to justify your refusal. Let's face facts: you simply do not want to offend those who are steeped in acts of unrepentant perversity. You would rather that the Mother of God and her Divine Son be blasphemed by the promotion of sin than run an advertisement that is dismissed by the use of leftist sloganeering as ‘ideological’ and ‘politically charged.’ A festival celebrating perversity and abject evil is not inflammatory; an advertisement exhorting Catholics to make reparation for the promotion of the sin of Sodom on a campus named for Our Lady is considered inflammatory. How very hypocritical and duplicitous. How very diabolical.
“Please be advised that an appropriate commentary on all of this has been written. It will be posted on various Catholic websites soon as an addendum to my original commentary posted at www.remnantnewspaer.com, which has been linked to by various sites across the nation at present.
Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Queen, Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.”
(Updated as of Friday, February 13, 2004)
The text of the advertisement quoted above was run in the Viewpoints section of The Notre Dame Observer as a letter to the editor. My link to the fuller commentary on this website was deleted, however, from the text of my letter. Additionally, the following editor’s note appeared beneath the edited version of my comments:
“Editor's Note: This letter was originally submitted to The Observer as an advertisement. However, because The Observer does not allow advertisements of an ideological nature, The Observer's Editorial Board rejected the advertisement and offered the author a chance to resubmit the text to the Viewpoint section.”
As a Remnant reader wrote to Observer editor Andrew Soukup:
“I wasn't aware that paid advertisements defending the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in salvation history and questioning the politically correct ideologically based decision to allow a ‘Queer Film Festival’, which clearly dissents from Catholic moral teaching and the natural law on a ‘Catholic’ campus named after the Blessed Mother of God, met the criteria for an advertisement of a political or ideological nature. After reading the material in question on your Viewpoint section, I'm still baffled as to what political party or ideology you think Dr. Droleskey was promoting. His ad/letter is Catholic common sense, something apparently in short supply at the university.”
Yes, the folks at the Observer continue to insist that a commentary to defend the honor of the Mother of God is ideological and politically charged, which is why it is important for Catholics to continue to write to them to explain that they are not only wrong, but that they are remaining publicly indifferent as perverse sin is being promoted on a campus named for Our Lady.
One student, so angry with my articles that he had difficulty studying for an examination, wrote to me to say that I did not know the private views of the students who were simply “enforcing the rules” of the Observer newspaper’s advertising policies. I explained to him that rules and policies must be interpreted, and that no believing Catholic can refer to an effort to defend the honor of Our Lady as ideological or political. I explained to him further that the private views of the students are irrelevant. In the name of “objective” journalism they are remaining indifferent to the outrage taking place on the Notre Dame campus at present. A Catholic is called at all times to integrate the Faith in to all aspects of his personal and professional lives. Any attempt to create a dichotomy between personal beliefs and professional actions leads directly to the situation we face with Catholic politicians protesting how much they oppose abortion privately but how they support the “law of the land” publicly.
As Pope Leo XIII pointed out in Immortale Dei:
“Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.”
The Notre Dame Observer did run a news story on the perverse film festival and a review of the films being shown therein. Andrew Soukup wrote to the Remnant reader to say that his paper would have accepted an advertisement from the event’s organizers if they had sought to place one as the event was taking place on campus. This young man, Mr. Soukup, has likely not read Pope Leo XIII to understand that an indifference to the promotion of sin in a quasi-Catholic setting reflects the very sort of lack of integrity that was denounced in very bold terms by Pope Leo XIII above.
What applies to Mr. Soukup applies as well to Mr. Nathan Hatch, the Provost of the University of Notre Dame, who has been sending out canned e-mail responses to those complaining about a certain play with an unspeakable title that will be “performed” on the Notre Dame campus on February 14, 2004. Like Mr. Soukup, Mr. Hatch appealed to the fact that the play was an official campus event sponsored by the Gender Studies Department of the university and that there has to be room in a university setting for the expression of views that the university may or may not necessarily endorse. Again, turning to Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei:
“So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue.”
Pope Leo XIII’s references to the State’s inability to put evil temptingly before the eye of man has special currency for a Catholic institution, which is betraying the Divine Redeemer just as much as Judas Iscariot if it does so, which is exactly what is happening at the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana, at present.
Thus, keep those e-mails and phone calls going. Our efforts may be futile, humanly speaking. All we can do is provide people with the truth. What they choose to do with it is on their own immortal souls. And remember this: Our Lady uses all of our efforts, no matter how seemingly futile in earthly terms, if we give them to her Immaculate Heart as her consecrated slaves.