April 20, 2017
Part 1: The Planned Destruction
There has been much written concerning the family and its importance in society and the Church. It is certainly understandable considering the vital role the family has in this world.
The family has been under attack for many years by a variety of enemies of the Church and Natural and Moral Law. These attacks have been unprecedented in the 20th and 21st centuries. The world has witnessed a relentless warring against fatherhood, motherhood and children in a variety of ways. One is now able to look back and see when this modern-day battle began and who was responsible.
Note: Portions of the following section on Margaret Sanger are taken from Margaret Sanger Quotes, History, and Biography (liveaction.org).
In 1911, Margaret Sanger moved to New York where she was heavily influenced by anarchist, socialist, and labor activists. She began joining and participating in radical groups and causes. Already in 1914 she promoted birth control in her own paper The Women Rebel along with violence to achieve political, economic and social goals.
In October 1916, Sanger opened America’s first birth control clinic. Located in Brownsville, New York, the clinic permanently closed a month later, after Sanger was charged with maintaining a public nuisance. In February 1917, she was convicted and given a thirty day prison sentence.
Also in February 1917, the first issue of Sanger’s journal, The Birth Control Review, was published. She was The Review’s editor until 1929, and used her editorials to promote birth control and eugenics. For Sanger, these issues were inseparable.
She had a particular desire to eliminate the Black Race whom she considered to unfit to have children and raise families. The statistics today confirm her original intent is still carried out. Over 30% of all abortions are performed on black women and close to 40% of black pregnancies end in abortion. When one considers that the Blacks in the United States comprise 13% of the population (2015), these abortions along with an unknown number who practice artificial birth control, this race is being eliminated simply because of the lies of those who are also working to undermine the family and marriage.
In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which (following a 1939 merger with the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau and then a 1942 name change) became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The 1942 name change became “necessary” to disassociate her organizations and work from Nazi Germany who had previously taken her work on birth control and eugenics and used it for their own evil purposes.
In her later years, Sanger still believed that there were people “who never should have been born at all.” In a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, she said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin – that people can – can commit.”
She continued to write, speak to various groups and expand Planned Parenthood. Her dislike of blacks, the poor and others whom she considered to be unfit for society continued to the end of her life. She died in 1966.
Margaret Sanger’s influence in the United States and around the world is nothing short of disastrous. She was nothing less than a spokeswoman for Satan. The spiritual damage cannot be measured in human terms. She not only promoted artificial birth control, but undoubtedly had a direct influence on abortion and morality in general.
The number of lives lost through birth control and abortion is known to God alone. If the estimate of one billion lives lost through “known” abortions worldwide since about 1973 is accurate, how many were prevented or aborted via the various artificial birth control methods devised by man and conceived in Hell?
Note: Portions of the following section on Freemasonry are taken from Dressing with Dignity by Colleen Hammonds.
The second organized effort to destroy the family was actually the first. The Freemasons set in motion in the early part of the 19th century to undermine female morality as a means of ultimately destroying the Church.
It must be said that although there is no evidence to confirm such a claim, one must wonder if Margaret Sanger was a Freemason or at least working with them. Is it merely a coincidence the timeline for her and the Freemasons is nearly identical? One would think not.
“In order to destroy Catholicism, it is necessary to commence by suppressing woman… But since we cannot suppress woman, let us corrupt her with the Church…” (Letter of Vindez to Nubius, pen names of two leaders of the Alta Vendita, the highest lodge of the Italian Carbonari, Masonic revolutionaries, Aug. 9, 1838.)
It has been understood by various individuals in history that women are the moral compass of society. A moral woman will produce a moral society; an immoral woman will bring about an immoral society. This is clearly seen today.
How were the Freemasons going to corrupt women? By changing the fashions and therefore the morals.
“Religion does not fear the dagger’s point; but it can vanish under corruption. Let us not grow tired of corruption: we may use a pretext, such as sport, hygiene, health resorts. It is necessary to corrupt, that our boys and girls practice nudism in dress. To avoid too much reaction, one would have to progress in a methodical manner: first, undress up to the elbow; then up to the knees; then arms and legs completely uncovered; later, the upper part of the chest, the shoulders, etc. etc.” (International Review on Freemasonry, 1928.)
Fashions began to noticeably change at the turn of the 20th century. It did not take long for the Catholic clergy to take notice and speak out. In 1910, the Archbishop of Paris led a campaign against women’s immodest fashions. Five years later the Church released a General Pastoral Directive stating that women must be dressed decently at Mass and that the priest may refuse them entrance into the church if they are not dressed properly.
Was the Church aware of this plot to undermine morals? One might possibly answer yes, considering they reacted so quickly to the changes in fashions.
Our Lady of Fatima also said that certain fashions would be introduced “that will offend Our Lord very much.” Jacinta commented later that people who serve God should not follow current fashion trends. Jacinta also said that the Church has no fashions, and that “Our Lord is always the same.”
Slacks appeared on the fashion runways of Paris in 1920. The next year, Pope Benedict XV expressed his shock that women would embrace the current fashion trends and styles of dancing. He wrote, “One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes [outfits] as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty.” (Encyclical Letter Sacra Propediem, Jan. 6, 1921.)
In the 1920’s, women’s clothing styles were taking a radical and revolutionary new look. For the first time in history, women of refinement were seen wearing sleeves above the elbow and hemlines that crawled up to the knee. Remember that Masonic directive: “First, undress up to the elbow; then up to the knees; then arms and legs completely uncovered; later, the upper part of the chest, the shoulders, etc. etc.”
In 1928 Pope Pius XI wrote, “There is a sad forgetfulness of Christian modesty, especially in the life and dress of women.” (Encyclical Letter Miserentissimus Redemptor.)
Worldly Catholics and secular society responded by saying that modesty in dress was regulated by “customs and styles of time, place and circumstances.” They encouraged women to ignore these statements from the Church. Instead, they said, it was society and culture that should dictate what is modest and appropriate.
But in their publications, Freemasons had revealed their motive and plan. The following quote bears repeating:
“Religion does not fear the dagger’s point; but it can vanish under corruption. Let us not grow tired of corruption: we may use a pretext, such as sport, hygiene, health resorts. It is necessary to corrupt, that our boys and girls practice nudism in dress. To avoid too much reaction, one would have to progress in a methodical manner: first, undress up to the elbow; then up to the knees; then arms and legs completely uncovered; later, the upper part of the chest, the shoulders, etc. etc.” (International Review on Freemasonry, 1928.)
If you look at the fashion trends since 1928, you can see that styles have very closely followed this strategy. At that time, garments were already up to the elbows and knees.
The year 1928 was also the beginning of Pope Pius Xl’s Modesty Crusade. It makes one think that he may have known about the plan of Freemasonry. The Modesty Crusade started with a Letter to the Bishops of Italy (August 23, 1928) and was directed primarily at schools run by religious sisters. It spoke against immodest fashions, “which prevail today to the detriment of good breeding…”
Then on January 12, 1930, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by order of Pope Pius XI, issued a Letter to the Bishops that exhorted bishops, priests, nuns, teachers, parents, etc. to insist on modesty in those under their charge. The document concludes with these words:
“Maidens and women dressed immodestly are to be debarred from Holy Communion and from acting as sponsors at the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation; further, if the offense be extreme, they may even be forbidden to enter the church.”
Detailed instructions on modesty of dress for women had been issued on September 24, 1928, by the Cardinal-Vicar (Vicar General) of Pope Pius XI in Rome, Basilio Cardinal Pompili:
“We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers’ breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper.”
Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) continued the Modesty Crusade during his pontificate. In an allocution of May 22, 1941 to young Catholic girls during World War II, he urged them not to fall for fashions that had, until then, been worn only by “women of doubtful virtue.” His words are a sobering reminder that the Church is ever mindful of the salvation of souls.
“Numbers of believing and pious women. . . in accepting to follow certain bold fashions, break down, by their example, the resistance of many other women to such fashions, which may become for them the cause of spiritual ruin. As long as these provocative styles remain identified with women of doubtful virtue, good women do not dare to follow them; but once these styles have been accepted by women of good reputation, decent women soon follow their example, and are carried along by the tide into possible disaster.”
The Canadian bishops followed suit in the Spring of 1946, this time admonishing men to wear shirts in public-even at the beach-and to avoid tight trousers.
That summer, Pope Pius XII said, “Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles, like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could only guess the impression they make and the feelings they arouse in those who see them.” (Allocution to Children of Mary Immaculate, July 17, 1954.)
Pope Pius XII cautioned women that, if certain styles were an occasion of sin for others, it was their duty not to wear them. He also warned mothers to make sure their children were dressed modestly. His timeless admonition sounds as though it could have been written today!
“The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts… If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up…
“O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill subdued doubts, of hardly suppressed shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making for yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians.” (Allocution to the Girls of Catholic Action, May 22, 1941.)
Pope Pius XII recognized that women are the moral fiber of society, and he knew that the culture would implode if modesty were not put into practice. “Society reveals what it is by the clothes it wears,” Pius XII said on August 29, 1954. “… An unworthy, indecent mode of dress has prevailed” without any distinction of place, “on beaches, in country resorts, on the streets, etc. Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity…”
The Pope wasn’t the only one who had something to say about fashion’s downward spiral. Everyday clothing was using less and less material, and going to the beach was a relatively new pastime that was gaining in popularity. In 1959, Cardinal Pia y Daniel, Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, stated,
“A special danger to morals is represented by public bathing at beaches. . . Mixed bathing between men and women, which is nearly always a proximate occasion of sin and a scandal, must be avoided.”
The Cardinal was simply echoing and reinforcing what the Roman Emperors knew two thousand years ago: mixed swimming leads to promiscuity. That’s a long way from where our culture is today, isn’t it!
Cardinal Siri, of Genoa, Italy, wrote a letter in 1960 called “Notification Concerning Men’s Dress Worn by Women.” He expressed concern that by wearing trousers, women were imitating and competing with men. His concern was that this would bring about in women the mental attitudes of a man, and would modify a woman’s gestures, attitudes and behavior.
Padre Pio refused women access to the confessional if their dresses were too short. On the door of the church was this message:
“By Padre Pio’s explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts at least 8 inches below the knee. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them for the Confessional.”
As one author commented, while fashion designers had skirts climbing to more than eight inches above the knee, Padre Pio warned women to keep their skirts eight inches below the knee.
Comparatively little has been said or written by the Catholic clergy since the 1960’s. Pastors began to allow immoral fashions to be worn at Mass, a scandal which continues to this day in the Modernist Church to the moral detriment of numberless clergy and laymen. There certainly is a connection between the loss of the sense of the sacred (faith) and wearing immoral fashions in church.
But this is not only about what is worn in church, but also about what is worn in daily life, especially by women. Over the past fifty to sixty years we have seen women wear fashions that were once worn only by prostitutes. It started with adult women and now you have teen-age girls vying with each other to see who can best look like the underage slutty streetwalker. What is so tragic about this situation is they consider it perfectly acceptable and, therefore, do not see anything wrong with this immoral display of nudity. We have gone well beyond the time when women would not wear any type of under garment as an outer garment, and are seemingly clueless to the damage which is done in society.
The overall picture is one where the sense of modesty is so far removed from the mind of the mob, they would not make decent pagans. It has been noticed for some years that a growing number of women no longer know how to carry themselves or sit properly when wearing a skirt or dress! Apparently, this basic sense of decency is no longer taught by mothers who all too often want to dress like their immoral clueless daughters.
The goals of Margaret Sanger and the Freemasons have unfortunately, been accomplished among far too many women. Immoral men have been too willing to promote the degradation of women. Many good women have found it increasingly difficult to find modest dresses and skirts for themselves and their daughters.
The Modernist clergy have allowed women to wear immoral fashions in their once-Catholic churches since at least since the late 1960’s. How many boys and men have fallen into mortal sin in church because of such scandals? Rarely have any of these men made an attempt to enforce some type of dress code.
The damage to society can hardly be calculated. History has shown that once a nation crosses such moral boundaries it usually is too late to recover and save the country. It would be bad enough if one was considering one country. Sadly, the entire world is engulfed in an ocean of immorality.
To be Continued
Fr. Joseph Noonan, OFM