Search This Blog

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Margaret Sanger vs. The Catholic Church

Those familiar with the abortion movement know that an early strategy was to create an enemy. Bernard Nathanson, abortionist turned pro-life champion, tells how he and Lawrence Lader, founder of NARAL, made up "facts" about millions of illegal abortions and deliberately targeted the Catholic Church as the enemy of women. It was effective.

But Nathanson and Lader were simply following the lead of an earlier anti-life liar, Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a brilliant strategist and used lies to further her evil purposes. Early on she decided to target the Church, the greatest bulwark standing against her message of promiscuity and free sex.

Touchstone has a great article:

 SANGER’S VICTORY: How Planned Parenthood’s Founder Played the Christians—and Won by Allan Carlson.

Here's a bit of the article exposing Sanger's hatred for the Church:
But to finally succeed, Sanger needed an enemy; the Roman Catholic Church fit the bill perfectly. Sanger correctly perceived that pre-1914 fears of Roman Catholic expansion in America would swell into a wave of anti-Catholicism after the war. The Ku Klux Klan enjoyed explosive growth after 1918, with membership climbing briefly into the millions and with “Catholic hordes” among its foes. At the level of law, the new immigration act of 1924 was, as a committee report put it, an effort “to guarantee, as best we can at this late date, racial homogeneity in the United States”; by this, the law’s architects implicitly meant white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. 
Opposition to Catholicism also suited Sanger personally. Her father had tutored her on the presumed evils and dangers of Rome. Moreover, her study of and involvement in socialist activities before the war had taught her the value of a clearly identified foe when launching a social-political movement. Already marginalized in American life, Catholics were the obvious choice. In her desire to gain a sacred canopy for birth control, she could easily play on four-century-old antipathies between Protestants and Catholics to bring the former to her side. 
As historian Herschel Yates, Jr., has noted, Sanger’s “battle with the Roman Catholic Church was an ideological one.” The early Christian community, Sanger argued in Woman and the New Race(1920), was actually anti-natalist, focused on celibacy and conversion. Only later would it use the “sex force for its own interest,” to produce laymen who would sustain, financially and otherwise, a growing ecclesiastical order. While pagan Roman women had considerable freedom, she said, the Christian Church now “exhorted women to bear as many children as possible.” She added:
If Christianity turned the clock of general progress back a thousand years, it turned back the clock two thousand years for women. Its greatest outrage upon her was to forbid her to control the function of motherhood under any circumstances, thus limiting her life’s work to bringing forth and rearing children.
The Church, she went on, “has always known and feared the spiritual potentialities of woman’s freedom.” As another writer put it in an early issue of theBirth Control Review,“the [Catholic] church . . . prefers myths to facts, tradition to experience, darkness to light.” This focus on Catholicism’s reputed war on science and knowledge would later blossom into an appeal to Protestants to break ranks with Catholics, since, it was asserted, the birth control movement was only seeking what “any good Protestant” would want but was “prohibited from achieving . . . by an alien, half-Americanized Roman Catholicism.”
Anti-Catholicism continues to be alive and well in the United States as evidenced by the HHS mandate which targets all churches that oppose abortion and contraception, but especially hits the Catholic Church and her many charitable institutions. Margaret Sanger is the ideological mother of the liberalism destroying our country. She was anti-God, anti-Catholic, and ultimately anti-woman. That women today are less respected can hardly be denied and Margaret's crusade for promiscuity is largely responsible. 

Read the complete article. It's a real eye-opener into the strategy of the diabolical.


Anonymous said...

The obvious photoshop job on that photo makes the rest of your post non-credible.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Whether the photo is legit or not, Margaret Sanger testified personally to her experience with the KKK. She wrote about it in her autobiography. You can listen to the section on YouTube - - or get her autobiography and read it yourself. I've read her autobiography, a self-serving and ultimately dishonest portrait of herself. She was never a nurse, for example. She didn't have enough discipline. As for her relationship with the KKK Silver Lake obviously wasn't her only lecture to such a group as she testifies herself. It opened doors to her to speak to other similar groups.

Unknown said...

well its abortion that the catholic church says its bad in the eyes of God but also my concern with the church is not to use condoms. what does the church have to say about the spread of Aids if it restricts its followers from using condoms?

Unknown said...

Dear John Phiri,
The Church upholds The Decalogue given to Moses at Mt. Horeb, Jesus Christ I.H.S came to fulfill the law and the prophets.
We must each seek chastity in mind and body, whatever our state in life. Therefore we must, if we love God, rein our sexual drive so that God may be Lord of our life. God wants our sexuality to be regarded as sacred so, multiple sex partners are not okay. It is not easy being celibate when unmarried, but we can grow in holiness waiting for the one for whom we were created to be in Holy Matrimony. This also applies to the chastity of Holy Matrimony, in which one man and one woman give their whole selves in "marital embrace". The families whom I know, who have been faithfully open to life, are amazing and richly blessed. Why we should we seek less?

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Morpheus, your profanity-laced ad hominem attack does not pass the comment test. If you want to present some facts to support your contention, do so in a respectful manner. Otherwise, "No soup for you!"