Yesterday, New York City Council Member Tony Avella introduced his Department of Education Holiday Display Resolution (Reso. 930/2007).  Avella’s bill calls for a nativity scene to appear alongside the menorah and crescent and star in New York City schools.  Currently, the schools allow only a Christmas tree, a secular symbol of the Christian holiday, to stand in its winter holiday displays.  On Sunday, Avella held a press conference on the steps of City Hall to discuss this resolution.  He was joined by Catholic League president Bill Donohue, Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center, representatives from the Ladies Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Knights of Columbus and Andrea Skoros, the plaintiff who first brought this injustice to the courts.  They were flanked by a big crowd of supporters.

Commenting on Avella’s bill is Bill Donohue:

“Though a federal appeals court upheld the legality of excluding a crèche, the court disagreed with the city’s claim that the menorah and the star and crescent are secular symbols and added, ‘We do not here decide whether the City could, consistent with the Constitution, include a crèche in its holiday displays.’  Accordingly, it is up to the Department of Education to decide whether to treat Christian students with the same respect it shows students of other faiths.

“Councilman Avella’s bill calls on the Department of Education to practice inclusion and end discrimination against students adhering to the Christian faith.  Councilman Jimmy Oddo has agreed to be a co-sponsor of the bill, which was submitted to the Education Committee.  Avella is currently seeking additional co-sponsors.

“We salute Tony Avella and Jimmy Oddo for their efforts, and we are eager to see how all the other councilmen will react to this resolution.”

Write to Councilman Robert Jackson, chair of the Education Committee, by visiting http://www.nyccouncil.info/constituent/email_form.cfm?con_id=76.

Finally, a unique film that combines the excitement of sports and the richness of the Catholic Faith! “Champions of Faith: Baseball Edition” is a film that showcases Catholicism in a positive and respectful manner. Too often Hollywood uses the Catholic Church as a punching bag, choosing to treat Catholics as “looney” and out-of-touch with reality. This film portrays Catholicism in a heroic light and truly makes one excited to be Catholic.

“Champions of Faith” showcases the Catholic faith-lives of a range of All-Star Major Leagueball players, coaches and managers. These men take their faith seriously and live out that faith with joy, enthusiasm and love. Superstar athletes all too often get caught up in fame and fortune, but the men profiled in “Champions of Faith” are so down-to-earth that they could be considered “the guy next door”—or more fittingly, “the guy in the next pew.”

Filled with exciting game footage from Major League Baseball, this groundbreaking film features inspiring and personal faith stories of some of baseball’s greats.

Future Hall of Famer Mike Piazza shares how the Word of God started resonating inside of him and how it impacted his storied career.

Five-time All Star Mike Sweeney speaks of his conversion and reveals the difficulty of seeking forgiveness for a brutal on-field fight.

Third-base coach Rich Donnelly talks about how his faith in God deepened during his daughter’s life-and-death struggle with a brain tumor.

2006 World Series MVP David Eckstein and National League Championship Series MVP Jeff Suppan describe how they saw each other at Mass one Sunday and never knew the other was Catholic. From then on the two St. Louis Cardinals teammates attended Mass together and led their team through adversity and to a World Series crown.

And legendary manager Jack McKeon explains how the intercession of St. Therese after he was in “retirement” finally brought him his lifelong dream—a stunning World Series victory.

At a time when the Catholic Church and Catholics in general are under massive assault in the culture, “Champions of Faith” comes along with the unique ability to change hearts and perceptions. The more than two-dozen cultural icons featured in “Champions of Faith” are proud to be Catholic and unashamed of their Faith. These men are shining examples of what it means to be a man of God and a pillar of the Church.

Produced by Catholic Exchange (who last brought you the best-selling A Guide to the Passion),”Champions of Faith” is a powerful weapon in the culture wars of our times. It offers a unique opportunity to discuss faith, family, teamwork and leadership along with other spiritual lessons to be learned from the game of baseball. It’s an inspiring film that is sure to touch the hearts and lives of everyone who sees it.

For more information or to obtain a copy visit www.ChampionsofFaith.com or call 1-877-263-1263.

When “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” aired on the Discovery Channel on March 4, it wasn’t exactly met with critical acclaim. Indeed, even before the program aired, leading archeologists and historians were quick to dismiss the documentary’s claims as bunk. Below are a selection of criticisms aimed at this latest attempt to debunk the Christian faith. As you can see, the film was met with a good deal of disdain by those in academia.

Joe Zias, former Curator for Anthropology and Archeology from 1972-1997, Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem:

●     “Simcha [Jacobovici, the director] has no credibility whatsoever…He is pimping off the Bible…He got this guy Cameron, who made ‘Titanic’ or something like that—what does this guy know about archeology? I am an archeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, what would you say, ‘Who is this guy?’ People want signs and wonders. Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession.” (Newsweek, 3-5-07)

David Mevorah, curator at the Israel Museum:

●     The chances of the filmmaker’s claims being true “are more than remote…They are closer to fantasy.” (McClatchy-Tribune News Service, 2-26-07)

●     “Suggesting that this tomb was the tomb of the family of Jesus is a far-fetched suggestion, and we need to be very careful with that.” (New York Times, 3-3-07).

Amos Kloner, professor at Bar-Ilan University and archeologist in charge of the 1980 investigation of the tomb:

●     “The name ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ has been found on three or four ossuaries. These are common names. There were huge headlines in the 1940’s surrounding another ossuary, cited as the first evidence of Christianity. There was another Jesus Tomb. Months later it was dismissed. Give me scientific evidence, and I’ll grapple with it. But this is manufactured.” (Jerusalem Post, 2-27-07)

●     “It makes a great story for a TV film. But it’s completely impossible. It’s nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem.” (ibid)

●     “The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any new idea. It is only an attempt to sell.” (McClatchy-Tribune News Service, 2-26-07)

William Dever, Archeologist, professor emeritus, University of Arizona:

●     “It looks more like a publicity stunt than any kind of real discovery…They’re not scholars. They’re not experts. They didn’t discover this material. And I’m afraid they already have gone much too far. I don’t know a single archeologist in this country or Israel who agrees with their findings.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360°,” 2-28-07)

●     “The Da Vinci Code is fiction. And a lot of this story is fiction as well. I mean, to argue, from DNA evidence, that the Jesus in this tomb is not related to Mary, presumably Mary Magdalene, and therefore, that they are not siblings, so they must be married, does strain one’s credulity, doesn’t it?” (ibid)

●     (speaking to the director) “I noticed that many of the experts are quoted out of context. I can assure you that Frank Cross, who was my own teacher and who read the inscriptions for you and confirmed your reading does not agree with you, and I noticed he was carefully edited out just as he finished the reading, very conveniently. Ask him. Ask him.” (Discovery Channel’s “The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look,” 3-4-07)

●     “I am certainly not trying to defend the Christian tradition. I’m not a believer. As I said to the press, I have no dog in this fight. I’m trying to be a good scholar… One of the problems I have as an archeologist with this whole project is it puts archeology in a rather bad light. It perpetuates the notion among many non-specialists in the public that archeology is a kind of game, a sort of romantic, mysterious treasure hunt in which amateurs can make great discoveries. For me, it represents the worst kind of Biblical archeology, even if it’s anti-Biblical, because it seems to me the conclusions are already drawn in the beginning, and that’s my real problem. I think the argument goes far beyond any reasonable interpretation.” (ibid)

Lawrence Stager, professor of archeology of Israel, Harvard University:

●     “This is exploiting the whole trend that caught on with The Da Vinci Code… One of the problems is there are so many biblically illiterate people around the world that they don’t know what is real judicious assessment and what is what some of us in the field call ‘fantastic archeology.'” (New York Times, 2-27-07)

Stephen Pfann, textual scholar and paleographer, University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem:

●     “The so-called ‘Mariamene’ ossuary contained the names and remains of two distinct individuals. The first name on the ossuary, ‘MARIAME.’ was written in the common Greek documentary script of the period on the occasion of the interment of the bones of this woman. The second and third words ‘KAI MARA’ were added sometime later by a second scribe, when the bones of the second woman Mara were added to the ossuary….In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary (nor the ambiguous traces of DNA inside) to Mary Magdalene or any other person in Biblical, non-Biblical or church tradition.” (www.uhl.ac, “Mary Magdalene is Now Missing,” 3-13-07)

Jonathan Reed, professor of religion at the University of La Verne, co-author ofExcavating Jesus Beneath the Stones: Behind the Text:

●     “It’s what I would call ‘archeo-porn,’ it’s very exciting, it’s titillating, you want to watch it…but deep down you know it’s wrong.” (Discovery Channel’s “The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look,” 3-4-07)

●     “The thing that I really oppose is the approach to it. That is to say someone is trying to make a chain, and takes a series of links. We’ve nailed this one now lets move to the next one. We move on to the next one, and at the end, they created a chain. There are so many ‘ifs’ in that chain, what you need is scientists, archeologists, biblical scholars, to step back, and in dialogue and peer review, evaluate how much weight can that chain bear. And I think at the end of the day when we do that, I think overwhelmingly archeologists, scientists will weigh in and say this can’t be supported.” (ibid)

Jodi Magness, Professor of Judaism, University of North Carolina:

●     “There are people who somehow would like to have physical validation for biblical figures and events, and this feeds into that. But most of the general public doesn’t have the expertise to validate these claims. This pretty outrageous claim is being thrown out in the public arena, and it’s set up like a situation where it seems like there’s legitimate debate about whether it’s true or not, and it’s virtually impossible to explain in a one-minute sound bite why this can’t be true.” (Cox News Service, 3-1-07)

Garrett G. Fagan, classics professor at Pennsylvania State University and author of Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public:

●     “Modern architects of fantastic finds try to provide an air of legitimacy by invoking scientific jargon. They’re not scientists but they need to dress themselves in the clothes of science to past muster. Television is not in the business of education, even with the so-called educational channels like Discovery. Ultimately, they’re in the business of making money…. By the time the rebuttals come out, the mass media would have moved onto the next sensation, and people will have this vague notion that they have found the tomb of Jesus.” (Cox News Service, 3-1-07)

Alan Segal, professor of religion, Barnard College:

●     “The New Testament is very clear on this. Jesus was put in a tomb that didn’t belong to him and then he rose and there was nothing left. Why would Jesus’ family have a tomb outside of Jerusalem if they were from Nazareth? Why would they have a tomb if they were poor?” (Newsweek, 3-5-07)

Sandra Scham, editor of Near East Archeology:

●     “In the ’90s, I believe, they excavated tombs not far from there, in north Talpiot, where they found similar names. And, in those tombs, the bones themselves, they found as many as three or four individuals in one ossuary. So, the idea that, even the inscriptions on the ossuaries really identifies the one individual therein is sort of strange. It’s just there are so many anomalies here. They don’t have the direct evidence.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360°,” 2-28-07)

Ted Koppel, former anchor of ABC’s “Nightline” and moderator of the Discovery Channel’s panel discussion about the film:

●     “This is drama. This is not journalism.” (Discovery Channel’s “The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look,” 3-4-07)

Ronald Hendel, professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish studies at the University of California, Berkeley: 

●     As reported by the paper The Forward: “These are hucksters and snake-oil salesman who play fast and loose with historical details, said Hendel.” (3-2-07)

Bruce Feiler, journalist and author of  Where God was Born:

●     “They [the Holy Family] lived…Three days away in Nazareth. They could not have afforded [the tomb in Jerusalem]. There is no evidence that this man and woman ever knew each other. There’s no evidence they were married. There is no evidence they ever sired a child. I mean, these same filmmakers last year produced a documentary saying that the Exodus was real. Now they’re saying… that the New Testament is false. One of these documentaries is false. At least Dan Brown called his book fiction. In fact, I’m prepared to say… there is more truth in Dan Brown’s fiction than there is in Simcha’s [Jacobovici’s] fact.” (CBS’s “The Early Show,” 2-27-07)

by Father Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.

(Catalyst 6/2003)

I have been expecting a smear attack from the anti-Catholic segment of the media for years, and on March 2, 2003, it came. The Dallas Morning News, which I had never heard of, carried an article by Brooks Egerton entitled, “Priest plays down abuse crisis while helping clergy keep jobs.” The article began with a charge that I claimed that the sex-abuse scandal was “the stuff of fiction.” The article went on to report that a New Jersey diocese criticized my part in cases involving priests accused of abuse, and Egerton even quoted one victim as saying that I had “failed a lot of victims.”

Egerton also maintained that I had refused to be interviewed by him. In fact, he called my office twice while I was out on the road preaching. I did not refuse to be interviewed. In the case of a smear, you are between a rock and a hard place. It is common enough for the person called by an investigative reporter to become a victim. If you speak to one, prepare to have your remarks twisted, significantly abbreviated in a negative way, or simply turned against you. In this case I later learned a number of things about this investigative reporter that make me grateful to God that I was not at home when he called.

The trick in all this is that if you do not speak to the so-called investigative reporter, he will make you responsible for all inaccuracies in the article. If you do speak, you will be grossly misquoted. The heart of the smear is always a plain old-fashioned distortion, such as saying that I called the scandal a fiction.

A number of recent books and articles have been critical of the media. Ann Coulter’s fascinating book Slander (Crown Publishers) and Bernard Goldberg’s book Bias(Harper Perennial) are very good examples of the severe criticism of the media. Several writers as different as Richard Neuhaus and Andrew Greeley, as ideologically diverse as George Weigel and Peter Steinfels, and also of course William Donohue, have criticized the media for their handling of the clergy sex crisis.

When the media are not biased, they are often just inept. I got a taste of this from a small New England newspaper, the Metro News. Covering a talk I gave, which was attended by nine hundred people, the reporter indicated that two hundred people were present. I said that in the case of the resignation of the late Archbishop Eugene Marino of Atlanta several years ago, I could testify that about 98 percent of what was reported in the media about him was not true. The Metro News correspondent reported that I had said that 98 percent of the accusations against clergy in the present scandal were untrue. Egerton must have known I did not say this, because he had read at least the first part of my book. If you don’t believe me, read the book yourself (From Scandal to Hope, OSV 2002).

The victim I referred to above claimed that I had “failed a lot of victims,” according to Egerton. The victim later admitted he had never read my book and got his information from Egerton, who based it on the Metro News article. This victim was apologetic and friendly when he learned the facts of the case.

If you find all this complicated, welcome to the world of smears. Distortions, sprinkled with partial truths, are stock-in-trade because the average reader gets tired of the whole thing, shrugs his shoulders, and decides that some of the charges must be true. This was the apparent reasoning of Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s propagandist, who is reputed to have said, “Never tell a little lie; no one will believe it. Tell a big lie, and they will believe it.”

Often those who are involved in smear tactics do some legitimate things. They tell a story, which the media are supposed to do, but they tell it in a way to suit themselves. It is absolutely amazing how the public is unprepared to think even for a moment that the media would not tell the truth. We all think that the media can be sued if they lie. What a denial of reality! It is actually very difficult and expensive to hold the media legally responsible, especially for half-truths and unbalanced reporting.

Obviously investigators, reporters, and their editors are partially motivated by their own causes and opinions. I am very clear in my book that the present scandal is about homosexual incidents with minors; it is not about pedophilia, which involves prepubescent children. I am critical of the “gay” influences in the churches, and I distinguish gays from those who experience same-sex attractions but who follow the commandments of God and do not try to induce others into a sinful lifestyle. It is interesting to note, for example, that the Chicago Tribune (12/9/85) reported that Egerton was in a dispute with the Big Brothers/Big Sisters in Wisconsin who had a homosexual-exclusion policy. Egerton is quoted as saying, “That is deeply offensive to me. I really like kids, but I’m not going into the closet to be a Big Brother.” The Tribunealso reported several other gay activities Egerton was involved in. He was described as the assistant city editor of the Dallas Morning News and chairman of the Texas chapter of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association in 1995. One should not be surprised that he may have a little bias against the Catholic Church, which, along with most other world religions, disapproves of homosexual acts and lifestyles.

It is part of the usual smear campaign to make extraneous charges to undermine the credibility of the individual. This is known as “getting the dirt” on someone. In his article Egerton had me living in a mansion. In fact, I have lived for many years in a garage next to a retreat house. He also makes much of my not having a license as a psychologist. Many professors of psychology (I have been a professor for about forty years) do not get licenses, because they are not paid by insurance companies or other third parties. A license is required for such payment. I actually could charge individuals for my services even without a license, but I have never taken a single cent for my counseling and spiritual direction and never will.

In an original response I made on the friars’ website (www.franciscanfriars.com), I said that I could not discuss the priests whose names Egerton mentioned in the Dallas Morning News. Apparently he obtained information on some of these cases from the public relations person of the Paterson (N.J.) Diocese. How and why did she ever give such information to an investigative reporter? At my insistence, the Paterson Diocese later issued a clarification, which was intended to shed light on the remarks Egerton quoted from the diocesan spokeswoman. The clarification proved inadequate, and the Paterson Diocese refused to send it to the Dallas Morning News, limiting it only to the local paper. It makes a juicy part of the smear if a reporter can change the quotations of a public representative who is injudicious enough to give the reporter information that can then be misconstrued.

Since the smear came out, I have obtained permission from the priests involved to indicate that I neither evaluated nor treated them. They were all in well-recognized treatment programs and obtained recommendations from a skilled staff of mental health professionals, including psychologists and psychiatrists. Only one of them was involved in a charge of the abuse of minors, and he is no longer in the priesthood. What I did was to arrange for these priests to receive therapy. The one involved with minors has not been accused of a similar charge since the original accusation in the mid-1980s and the treatment he received.

Smears spread. The Philadelphia Inquirer, to which I once gave an anti-Catholic Robey award (named for Robespierre) on television, reprinted Egerton’s article, adding the original touch of an even worse headline (“Critic of media had a role in sex-abuse scandals”). I’m waiting for other papers to pick it up, particularly those I have identified publicly as having an anti-Catholic bias.

It’s rare that one can do much legally with a smear, but at the insistence of friends of mine, who are well-known lawyers, I am looking into this possibility. You can do one of two things with a smear or unjust attack. You can lie down and play dead and hope that they won’t notice you again, or you can come back at them. Most, if not all, of what they say is lies and distortions. Unfortunately, not to respond appears to give consent to what they say (silence gives consent, as the old legal adage has it), and I think such a policy has proved disastrous in the present clergy scandal situation.

I am deeply grateful to the Catholic League, especially to Catalyst, for their excellent defense of Catholicism and for their taking on all the smears possible. I expect other smears, and in fact I will be looking forward to them. They may even help the Church to be purified and spark reform. Since we Franciscan Friars of the Renewal are pro-life, pro-reform, and pro-Catholic, we’d better not be afraid. And there are blessings in being smeared. If it is for the sake of the Gospel, we will receive something much better than a plenary indulgence. Christ Himself has said:

“Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11-12).

Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R., is the Director of the Office for Spiritual Development of the New York Archdiocese and a founding member of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal.  

Last night on the CNN show “The Situation Room,” commentator Jack Cafferty posed the following question to viewers: “Should the Catholic Church be commenting on how the United States chooses to protect its national sovereignty?”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“I’m not sure what’s worse: Cafferty’s shallow understanding of the Catholic Church or his contempt for free speech. To begin with, the Catholic Church did not speak out about the propriety of building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. It was one Vatican official, Cardinal Renato Martino, who spoke against the fence—not the pope or any spokesman for the Vatican. Just as it would be wrong for me to blame CNN for Cafferty’s remark, it is wrong for Cafferty to blame the Vatican for Martino’s comment. Second, since when do clergymen give up their right to free speech? Does Cafferty want to silence all clergymen, or just Catholic priests? Third, the Vatican is not only a nation-state, the Holy See holds a Permanent Observer seat at the United Nations, and as such is free to voice its opinion about any world event.

“Cafferty ended his commentary by making a snide remark to Wolf Blitzer about the Catholic Church having lots of problems of its own these days. In other words, because of the scandal, no one affiliated with the Catholic Church has a right to address contemporary moral issues. I have news for Cafferty—people like myself bear no responsibility for any wrongdoing committed by any priest, and we will not be silenced by people like him. So he better get used to it. Not only that, but if institutional wrongdoing is an automatic disqualifier to participation in national discourse, it would end all discourse. Which means Cafferty would be out of a job.

“On October 31, Cafferty said on air that ‘I’m tired of doing this for four hours a night.’ So maybe the time has come, Jack.”

Contact Cafferty by visiting http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?65.

by Rebecca R. Messall, Esq.

(Catalyst 7-8/2005)

This article is taken from its fuller version in the fall 2004 issue of Human Life Review, available in its entirety at www.humanlifereview.com.

Everyone knows that the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion legalized abortion, but almost no one knows that legal abortion was a strategy by eugenicists, as early as 1939, to “genetically improve” the population by “reducing” it. In writing his opinion, Roe’s author, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, relied directly and indirectly on the work of these British and American eugenicists. Eugenics is easiest to describe as being the Darwin-based theory behind the Nazis’ plans to “breed” a race of human thoroughbreds. After Hitler, eugenic theorists advocated global control over who has babies, and how many. It has been called “population thinking.” America’s richest families promoted eugenicists and their many social initiatives, including Roe.

One of the clearest links between the eugenics movement and U.S. abortion policy is visible in the American Eugenics Society’s (AES) 1956 membership records, which includes a Planned Parenthood co-founder, Margaret Sanger, and at least two presidents, William Vogt and Alan Guttmacher. The AES had an ugly history of multiple ties to prominent Nazis in Germany. AES members assisted Hitler in crafting the 1933 German sterilization laws. Unbelievably, in 1956— after WWII—the AES membership list included Dr. Otmar Frieherr Von Verschuer, who had supervised the ongoing “science” experiments of Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz.

The AES lobbied successfully for involuntary sterilization laws in the United States, which claimed an estimated 63,000 victims. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld those laws in Buck v. Bell,which was cited in Roe. Some states have recently extended official regret and/or apology for those laws.

The Catholic Church was, and is, the nemesis of eugenicists. Politicians in both political parties who position themselves against the Catholic Church and in favor of Roe, align themselves with a host of eugenic strategies and fallout—which include human embryo exploitation (nick-named stem cell research), the trafficking in fetal body parts and euthanasia. They also align themselves with the Rockefeller family dynasty, who funded eugenic scientists decades before Hitler put eugenic theories into practice and who supported many of the leaders of the American Eugenics Society.

The Rockefellers’ support for eugenics began early in the twentieth century, and included support for the Eugenics Record Office. In 1913 John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (“Junior”) incorporated a group, which became a major force in supporting birth control clinics and played a pioneering role in the modern field of population studies.

As early as 1922, the Rockefeller Foundation sent money to fund German eugenics. Of Germany’s 20-plus Kaiser Wilhelm Institute science centers, Rockefeller money built or supported three which “made their mark for medical murder” under the Nazis. One institute was for brain research. During part of Hitler’s rule, it employed Hermann J. Muller, a Rockefeller-funded American socialist and geneticist. It later received “brains in batches of 150-250” derived from Holocaust victims. Another center, the Eugenics Institute, listed its 1935 activities as follows: “the training of SS doctors; racial hygiene training; expert testimony for the Reich Ministry of the Interior on cases of dubious heritage; collecting and classifying skulls from Africa; studies in race crossing; and experimental genetic pathology.”

Junior began funding Margaret Sanger in 1924. Surely he knew of her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization. In it Sanger railed against New York’s Archbishop, calling his orthodoxy a “menace to civilization.” Yet she admired Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, whose ideal she called “the rational breeding of human beings.” She said the Neo-Malthusians considered birth control as “the very pivot of civilization.” She said, “Birth control… is really the greatest and most truly eugenic program.”

When Frederick Osborn became president of the AES in 1946, the AES’ journal, Eugenical News, published a state-by-state report on sterilizations. It also reported on the opposition by Catholic hierarchy, religious and laity. In Alabama: “Whenever sterilization bills are introduced the Catholics descend upon the capital in numbers—priests, nuns and laity—and attack the bill as “against the will of God” and “an attack on the American home.” In Colorado, a 1945 bill failed passage due to “vigorous Catholic opposition.” In Pennsylvania: “The Cardinal’s office in Philadelphia immediately sent a letter to every legislator directing him to oppose the bill, and they were visited by the parish priests in their home communities.”

Frederick Osborn was put in charge of the Population Council, a group organized and funded by John D. Rockefeller III. In 1956, Osborn addressed the British eugenics society. Osborn affirmed his belief in “Galton’s dream” and proposed what he called “voluntary unconscious selection” by changing laws, customs and social expectations. To accomplish this voluntary unconscious selection, he advocated an appeal to the idea of “wanted” children.

In 1968, when many people wrongly believed that the eugenics movement had disappeared, Osborn published a book, The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society. Osborn asserted that “less intelligent women” could be convinced to reduce their births voluntarily, in order to “further both the social and biological improvement of the population.” He utilized a euphemism for racial minorities by urging that contraception be targeted to people “at the lower economic and educational level.” Osborn recommended disguising the reason for making birth control “equally available.” He said: “Measures for improving the hereditary base of intelligence and character are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.”

Writing his Roe opinion five years after Osborn’s book, Blackmun’s first four introductory paragraphs mention nothing about the newly decreed right of privacy in support of abortion, but he does state: “population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.” Blackmun directly cited the two men closely connected to the British and the American eugenics societies. Glanville Williams is cited twice. Christopher Tietze is cited three times and Lawrence Lader’s book, Abortion, is cited seven times.

The mystery of Blackmun’s curious opening paragraphs in Roe may be solved by Lader’s book,Abortion, which contains panicked rhetoric such as the following:

“The frightening mathematics of population growth overwhelms piecemeal solutions and timidity. No government, particularly of an underdeveloped nation, can solve a population crisis without combining legalized abortion with a permanent, intensive contraception campaign.”

Glanville Williams (1911- 1997) was a Eugenics Society Fellow in England. Before citing Williams in Roe, Blackmun would have seen Williams’ explicit reference to eugenics:

“Contraception and Eugenics: The problem does not only concern the limits of subsistence, though this in itself is one of sufficient magnitude. There is, in addition, the problem of eugenic quality. We now have a large body of evidence that, since industrialization, the upper stratum of society fails to replace itself, while the population as a whole is increased by excess births among the lower and uneducated classes.”

Before Roe, Ireland’s future cardinal, Cahal B. Daly, had exposed Williams’ anti-Catholic rhetoric:
“Examples of the technique occur on every alternate page…Christian moral teaching is ‘reactionary,’ ‘old-fashioned,’ ‘unimaginative,’ ‘primitive if not blasphemous,’ ‘restrictive,’ ‘irrational,’ ‘out-moded,’ ‘dogmatic,’ ‘doctrinaire,’ ‘authoritarian.’

“Contrasted with it are ‘enlightened opinion,’ ‘interesting medico-social experimentation,’ ‘progressive statutes,’ ’empirical, imaginative humanitarianism.'”

Blackmun acknowledged the Catholic scientific view that life begins at the moment of conception, but thereafter Blackmun relied on books and articles espousing the science of eugenics. In fact, one book contains a subheading titled, “The New Eugenics,” and cites two men who can be described as maniacal eugenicists who were seemingly paranoid about a deteriorating human heredity. Blackmun cited an article, “The New Biology and the Future of Man”, which speaks for itself:

“Taken together, [artificial gestation, genetic engineering, suspended animation]…they constitute a new phase in human life in which man takes over deliberate control of his own evolution… There is a qualitative change to progress when man learns to create himself…a reworking of values is required…Submission to supernatural power is not adaptive to a world in which man himself controls even his own biological future…What counts is awareness of the unmistakable new fact that in general new biology is handing over to us the wheel with which to steer directly the future evolution of man.”

In March 1973, two months after Roe was handed down, Osborn’s American Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology. The announcement said: “The change of name of the Society does not coincide with any change of its interests or policies.” The group had already changed the name of its journal in 1968 from Eugenics Quarterly, to Social Biology. Commenting on the new title, Osborn remarked: “The name was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”

This, then, is the ideological basis of the abortion industry.

Pauline Magee-Egan

April 2009

Psychology’s War on Religion, edited by Nicholas Cummings, et al. (Phoenix, Arizona: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, 2009) Order online at www.zeigtucker.com or call 1-800-666-2211

The editors of this important volume have assembled the writings of various experts to comment on several religions and the impact of psychology’s stand on religious beliefs. The collection maintains that psychology has systematically attacked all religions, without exception.

In the introductory chapter, the editors offer an accurate account of the movement within the profession, as exhibited by the American Psychological Association (APA), and the way religious values and beliefs have been attacked. The statements made by the APA have been influential in the resignation of psychologists who practice their religion. The APA does not speak for all psychologists, and in recent years it has introduced outrageous positions when it comes to abortion and homosexuality. A supposedly professional organization has been enlisted in the anti-religious movement evident in our culture. Indeed, years ago I resigned from this once professional organization since their professed beliefs were directly antithetical to mine, and to my training as a Catholic psychologist.

This professional organization, controlled by leftists, lacks sensitivity towards its membership and the patients who are subjected to their anti-religious viewpoints. The chapter titled, “The Culture Wars and Psychology’s Alliance,” written by William T. O’Donohue, offers a great summary of the ways the profession has been politicized. Psychology, because it is a social science, requires sensitivity and objectivity, but too often it not only lacks understanding, it demonstrates a belligerence that typifies our culture.

In setting the stage for the very title of the book, the editors have emphasized that our culture today is in turmoil, especially with regards to ethics. Psychology has literally declared war on religion. They wisely point to the specific issues which are continually being fought: abortion; homosexuality; gay rights; the status of women; ethical absolutism versus ethical relativity; the definition of normative sexual behavior; the definition of mental health; bioethics/stem cell research; the death penalty; creationism, intelligent design and evolution. These issues are cause for concern because they affect everything from law to education.

Why the attack on religion? Logically, they maintain, if standards of morality are attacked, then we can live in a world which knows no barrier or parameters. We can throw out the golden rule, values, commandments and any laws which we don’t like. No wonder ethics is viewed with askance. Indeed, ethical relativism has crept into business and politics, contaminating our thinking. Such “erudite” thinking is exactly what is happening in our professions and particularly the psychology profession.

In the chapter on paradoxical relationships, Nicholas and Janet Cummings (father and daughter) illustrate the historical beginnings of the founders of psychology. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, we had G. Stanley Hall and William James, both of whom had deep spiritual roots. Together with Hugo Munsterberg, a physician who taught philosophy, they viewed religion as part of psychology. Those familiar with the history of psychology in the United States know that many graduate programs grew out of philosophy departments. Little was anticipated regarding the tremendous upheaval that was about to take place in the APA.

In the 1950s many Catholic psychologists felt that the divide between the professional organization, and what they ascribed to, was widening. Various schools of thought regarding psychoanalysis injected thoughts of abandoning religion and its tenets, finding them “infantile and neurotic.” It was around this time that the Reverend Father Bier, S.J. formed the American Catholic Psychological Association. Meetings were held at its  national conference on issues regarding values, ethics and religion. It was a safe haven for those of us who did not agree with many of the positions the APA was taking.

It wasn’t until the 1970s that the APA moved to attack “faith-based” programs in clinical psychology. A subtle but effective movement was launched. Since then psychology as a social science has struggled to identify itself. Abandoning its philosophical and spiritual roots, and trying to represent itself as the scientific study of human beings, psychology has become a conflicted field of study. In fact, psychology has had an identity crisis and it is still persisting in its endeavors to emulate science. The key element here is that science deals with objective truth, whereas psychology deals with aspects of it.

There are several chapters on the conflict between religion and psychology. For example, homosexuality was eliminated as an official “psychiatric disorder” by the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. An informative chapter on the problem of religious gays written by Michael Lavin clearly wrestles with the problem of the dictates of the APA on homosexuality and the subsequent counseling and treatment of people who are inclined towards this behavior. The difference lies in the belief that homosexuality is a “behavioral” issue.  

Transformational counseling has entered the field in the past few years. Not content with stating that homosexuality is not a disorder, the leftists have damned the idea of anyone who serves as a counselor who might support the transformation of a homosexual to switch to a heterosexual life. Lavin stresses that good counseling is predicated on sensitivity and respect for the religious beliefs of patients; the therapist should not impose his beliefs but rather respect the patient’s beliefs and help him in dealing with whatever conflicts that he may have. The Catholic Church recognizes that homosexuality exists but emphasizes the need for chastity in regulating one’s life: All human beings possess the free will to change their behavior. Other religions have different judgment calls but the essential thought is to recognize what part religion plays in one’s life and support a change in behavior if it is disrupting to the person.

The chapter reviewing the battle regarding sexuality by Mark Yarhouse is a marvelous treatise on the impact of policy throughout the psychological profession. The line has been drawn on anyone talking about abstinence; the counseling of post-abortion women; the discussion of alternatives to leading a “gay” lifestyle, etc. Even the discussion of child abuse is now called “adult-sex” relations. The policies made by working groups, or  “task forces,” within the APA and the American Psychiatric Association, evince an almost total neglect of religion and its impact on behavior. Furthermore, graduate and undergraduate students today are exposed to derogatory commentaries about religious beliefs. Some might even be denied entrance into a graduate program if an investigation suggests they are “too religious.” The pomposity and general bias of the left has invaded the ivy halls so much so that the normal candidate who belongs to an authentic religion feels alien to what is being taught.

A scholarly and serious treatment on the subject of “Judaism and Psychotherapy” by Dr. Isaschar Eshet introduces the reader to a contrast to what he refers to as two “world views,” i.e. the Jewish worldview and the worldview of psychotherapy. In Israel, he says, most of the psychotherapists belong to the secular leftist intellectual group. He then launches into a discussion of the basic beliefs of Judaism. To his credit, he emphasizes the need for mutual respect of the two worldviews. Dr. Eshet hopes that the “evolving psychotherapy can also provide one with tools to unravel hints from the divine worldview.”

In the chapter on the “War on Catholicism,” William Donohue of the Catholic League gives a very well researched synopsis of the history of psychology and the evolution of the distrust that it shows for Catholicism. Occasionally injecting his usual humor and insights, he points to the very people responsible for such chaos in the 1950s and 60s (which I well remember). He spares no one in his ridicule regarding the research that was done, misinterpreted and taken as solid truth, taking particular aim at the work of Maslow and Rogers. Unsuspecting priests and nuns welcomed the views of these two psychologists with open arms, much to the detriment of their religious orders (some no longer exist).

Fear not, however, because Donohue always sees the bright side and illustrates all the positives that are present in what the Catholic Church has effected in our present culture. The aid that is given to the sick, troubled and least among us is endless and reflective of the generosity of those who believe in our faith. This is well stated and worthy of note despite the trashing the Church receives on a daily basis; the author is well situated to see this happen every day.

The chapter on Protestantism, by Cummings and Cummings, shows that “one size fits none.” What they mean is that there is a “buffet” of different beliefs, tenets, and values among the various denominations. Disarray is evident, and liberal thought has been injected into all the different churches.

Subsequent chapters dealing with Mormonism which has been attacked by the APA as a religion, exposes the outright trashing of the beliefs which some 13 million people follow. The bigotry of the APA which is fully documented in this chapter is as provocative as the injustice is blatant. Dr. A. Dean Byrd does an admirable job with his research and fact finding here.

Subsequent chapters dealing with a thorough synopsis of Islam and Buddhism illustrates some interesting concepts.  Psychology has been kind to Islam perhaps out of political correctness. Islamic beliefs differ in terms of two perspectives, namely the fundamentalist and the extremist. Both viewed, psychology students may very well open up an interesting area for scholarly study in the future.

For the general reader who relishes information on all religions and their basic beliefs this book is invaluable. It is well organized and the contributors are obviously scholars in their respective fields. This is a “must read”!

Pauline Magee-Egan, Ph.D,   is a professor at the Department of Management, Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University. She is also a New York State certified psychologist.