Contracepted Sex=Homosexual Sex

If you can't see video, follow this link: http://youtu.be/E8U4b6n-iRw

You've heard this factoid before-no church accepted contraception before 1930. That is, until the Lambeth Conference, when the Anglican Church decided contraception was acceptable under certain circumstances. It was all downhill after that, with Protestant denominations, one after another, following suit.

A more conservative Washington Post, on March 22, 1931, reacted with this statement:

"Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous."

The Catholic Church also, at that time clarified Her position with Pope Pius XI's encyclical Casti Conubii, On Christian Marriage.

To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words 'Increase and multiply,' is beyond the power of any human law.

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Pat Robertson would have his followers believe that Protestant churches have always accepted contraception. Being born in 1930, maybe he wouldn't remember. But a pillar of his church should make it his business to know.

On top of that, he lets his true colors show, when he talks about large families in Appalachia. He describes the poor children as "ragamuffins" and suggests they would have been better off not to be born. A tragic pronouncement for anyone to declare-who lives and who should not be born. And Protestants (and Liberals) aren't the only ones who make these pronouncements. Recall Matt. 26:11- "For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always."

Michael Voris draws a clear cut conclusion: if Robertson (and others) can claim to be pro-life, but still advocate for birth control, then they advocate against life.  For one reason, proponents of life realize the abortifacient property of birth control. Proponents of death won't draw the line between contraception and emergency contraception, and therefore abortion. More importantly, because birth control frustrates the marriage act's meaning- the begetting of children- Protestants like Robertson unknowingly open the door to unnatural unions that do the same thing.

Family Institute of Connecticut Endorsements

The FIC ACTION COMMITTEE has researched candidates and their platforms. If the candidate's platform upholds family values and acknowledges and encourages the vital role of the family in society, furthers Judeo-Christian principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they receive the Family Institute of Connecticut's endorsement.

The following is the second round of endorsements made by the FIC Action Committee. More endorsements may be made. Many factors went into our endorsements, including candidate questionnaires, voting record, viability, and leadership on key pro-family issues. We are endorsing candidates for General Assembly in 2012. Because FIC Action Committee is a State PAC, we cannot endorse candidates for federal office.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS LIST TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND VOTE ON NOVEMBER 6TH!

State Senate
Chris Coutu, (R-19) Andover, Bozrah, Columbia, Franklin, Hebron, Lebanon, Ledyard, Lisbon, Montville, Norwich & Sprague
Sen. Rob Kane, (R-32) Bethlehem, Bridgewater, Middlebury, Oxford, Seymour, Southbury, Thomaston, Roxbury, Watertown, Woodbury.
Malvi Lennon, (R-2) – Hartford, Bloomfield, Windsor.
Art Linares, (R-33) – Chester, Clinton, Colchester, Deep River, East Haddam, East Hampton, Essex, Haddam, Lyme, Old Saybrook, Portland & Westbrook.
Sen. Joe Markley, (R-16) Cheshire, Southington, Waterbury, Wolcott.
Sen. Michael McLachlan, (R-24) Bethel, Danbury, New Fairfield, Sherman.
Cheri Ann Pelletier, (R-4) Representing Bolton, Glastonbury, Manchester & Marlborough.
Hector Reveron, (R-3) – East Hartford, East Windsor, Ellington & South Windsor.
Sen. Len Suzio, (R-13) – Cheshire, Middlefield, Middletown and Meriden.
Sen. Jason Welch, (R-31) – Bristol, Harwinton, Plainville, Plymouth.
Sally White, (R-29) – Brooklyn, Canterbury, Killingly, Mansfield, Putnam, Scotland, Thompson & Windham.
Sen. Kevin Witkos, (R-8) - Avon, Barkhamsted, Canton, Colebrook, Granby, Hartland, Harwinton, New Hartford, Norfolk, Simsbury, Torrington

State House of Representatives
Rep. Tim Ackert (R-8) – Columbia, Coventry, Vernon.
Rep. Al Adinolfi (R-103) – Cheshire, Hamden Wallingford.
Mary Alford, (R-79) – Bristol, Forestville.
Greg Bachand, (R-85) – Wallingford.
Rep. Fred Camillo, (R-151) – Greenwich.
Rep. Vincent Candelora, (R-86) – East Haven, North Branford, Wallingford.
Rep. Dan Carter, (R-2) – Bethel, Danbury, Redding
Rep. Anthony D’Amelio, (R-71) – Middlebury, Waterbury
Mike France, (R-42) – Ledyard, Preston, Montville
Rep. John Frey (R-111) – Ridgefield.
Rep. Mary Fritz (D-90) – Cheshire, Wallingford
Rep. Marilyn Guiliano, (R-23) – Lyme, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, Westbrook
Richard Marzi, (D-55) – Andover, Bolton, Hebron, Marlboro.
Rep. Lawrence Miller, (R-122) – Shelton, Stratford.
Rep. Selim Noujaim, (R-74) – Waterbury.
Vincent Pacilieo (R-36) Chester, East River, Essex, Haddam.
David Rutigliano, (R-123) – Trumbull.
Rep. Rob Sampson (R-80) – Southington, Wolcott
Rep. Bill Simanski, (R-62) – Barkhamsted, East Granby, Granby, New Hartford.
Tom Sirard, (R-58) – Enfield.
Pablo Soto, (R-83) ­– Meriden.
Lezlye Zupkus, (R-89) – Prospect.

Paid for and approved by FIC Action Committee, Lawrence Taffner, Treasurer

LATEST:

Pro-Family Hot Picks! Volunteer now!

There are six races for State Senate where your volunteer time can make the difference between victory and defeat—not just for the candidate, but for whether or not we elect a pro-family majority to the State Senate that can stop Gov. Malloy’s anti-family agenda.
If you live in any of these towns or within a 20 mile radius of these towns, this is where your help is most urgently needed, especially this weekend (Nov. 3-4) and on Election Day, Nov. 6th:

Sen. Len Suzio, (R-13) – Cheshire, Middlefield, Middletown and Meriden. The re-election of Sen. Suzio is Family Institute of Connecticut PAC’s highest priority. Planned Parenthood and NARAL are paying people to go door-to-door for Sen. Suzio’s opponent. Please call the Suzio campaign at 203-440-0135 and offer to help.

Sen. Jason Welch, (R-31) – Bristol, Harwinton, Plainville, Plymouth. Sen. Welch could be a future Congressman. But first we need to get him re-elected to the State Senate, our second-highest priority in 2012. Please call Sen. Welch at 860-593-8337 and offer to help.

Cheri Ann Pelletier, (R-4) - Bolton, Glastonbury, Manchester, Marlborough. Cherie Ann is running against Sen. Steve Cassano, who voted for the transgender Bathroom Bill over the objections of his constituents and implied that they were bigots for opposing it. Please call Cherie Ann at 860-508-4170 and offer to help her.

Art Linares, (R-33) – Chester, Clinton, Colchester, Deep River, East Haddam, East Hampton, Essex, Haddam, Lyme, Old Saybrook, Portland & Westbrook. Art can defeat anti-family Sen. Eileen Daily. Please contact his campaign at 203-645-9215 and offer to help.

Sally White, (R-29) – Brooklyn, Canterbury, Killingly, Mansfield, Putnam, Scotland, Thompson & Windham. We believe that pro-family candidate Sally White can beat anti-family Senate President Don Williams. Please contact her campaign at 617-974-9735.

Bonus Round:

Chris Coutu, (R-19) – If you live in the towns of Andover, Bozrah, Columbia, Franklin, Hebron, Lebanon, Ledyard, Lisbon, Montville, Norwich or Sprague we need you to volunteer for Chris Coutu, who may win the seat being vacated by anti-family Sen. Edith Prague. Please call 860-373-7334 to help Chris. If you do not live in or near these towns but can volunteer, we need you for one of the other five races


FIC Action Committee does not have the financial resources of our opposition and we are not allowed to coordinate with these campaigns. The information above is based on publicly available data and our independent judgment as to where pro-family volunteers can make the most difference in this election.


Obviously, we hope our members will support all the candidates we have endorsed (and more endorsements will be made soon). But the six races above are where your volunteer help is most urgently needed. If you have any questions, please call us at 860-548-0066.

Paid for and approved by FIC Action Committee, Lawrence Taffner, Treasurer. Please click on the link below. Your donation can help pay for mailings into the key districts listed above.

Respect Life Month in Connecticut

Respect Life Month in Connecticut was a busy one this October. Especially notewothy were the youth at Trinity Catholic Middle School, St. Mary's Youth Group in Norwalk, and the young people participating in the Life Chains in Connecticut. We are proud of our youth who are not afraid to stand for life!

Juan Diego and OLG convert millions- Feast day Dec. 12

Juan Diego's fiat allowed millions of Aztecs to be converted from their practice of human sacrifice and polygamy to Catholicism. Ten million were converted in ten years! There weren't enough priests to perform the baptisms!

An Aztec Skull Rack (tzompantli in Nahuatl-Aztec language), displayed the heads of sacrificed human victims. In one ritual, 80,000 men were sacrificed to Quetzlcoatl, their supreme god.

The Aztec people were brilliant, yet cruel, with their tens of thousands of sacrifices to their gods. Listen to audio homily with some description of Aztec sacrifice and the conversion of Aztecs on account of Juan Diego.

Juan Diego was raised to sainthood in 2002, without even one miracle attributed to him. Millions of conversions is miracle enough, but on the day of his canonization, God granted the miracle to a fatherless boy.

Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. Juan Diego, pray for us!

What did Connecticut gain this election?

While the nation's voters voiced their opinions on Obama by placing  more Republicans in the House since the 1940s, and voting in key Republican senators, Connecticut maintained the status quo, speaking their liberal stance loudly.

With the governorship still on the fence, and a recount looming, Connecticut voted in a completely Democratic executive branch, 20 out of 32 senate seats, and 76 out of 115 assembly seats, with Bridgeport and other recounts still trickling in. Hopeful conservatives looked to Massachusetts and Scott Brown as their example, hoping to send a Republican senator to Washington this time around, but it was not to be. All five representatives, some of the most pro-death in Congress, and Dick Blumenthal, another NARAL favorite, easily dominated at the polls.

Connecticut remains solidly blue. But there is good news. Pro-life, pro-family candidates did make gains in Connecticut.

Endorsed pro-family state senate candidates won 50% of their contests, and pro-family representative candidates won 58% of their contests. Pro-life, pro-family candidates dominate the Republican class of freshman legislators, and won the vast majority of open and contested seats, reports the Family Institute of Connecticut's Action Committee.


Even though gubernatorial candidate Foley never responded to the FIC's questionnaires on pro-life and pro-family issues, his running mate for Lieutenant Governor, Danbury's Mayor Boughton, is a solid pro-life, pro-family advocate, and helped to bring some Connecticut pro-lifers to his side. But Foley was his own worst enemy, and failed the "throw-us-a-bone test" that could have given him the lead he needed to win the election outright, says Peter Wolfgang of the FIC.

With 75% of the freshman legislators being solidly pro-family, and no pro-family seats lost, it seems that Connecticut's conservatives may be chipping away at the solid blue foundation.

"If there is one lesson to be learned from the 2010 election, it is that the GOP needs pro-family backing to run competitively and gain seats," says Wolfgang. "If the top of the ticket had embraced social conservatives, the GOP might have prevented one-party rule in Hartford. Without us, it will be consigned to permanent minority-party status."

All we can hope for is a little purple.

Gardasil- what we knew all along!

Merck Researcher Admits: Gardasil Guards Against Almost Nothing
by Joan Robinson and Steven W. Mosher


On the morning of 2 October 2009, one of us (Joan) joined an audience of mostly health professionals and listened as Dr. Diane Harper, the leading international developer of the HPV vaccines, gave a sales pitch for Gardasil. Gardasil, as you may know, is the new vaccine that is supposed to confer protection against four strains of the sexually transmitted Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

Dr. Harper came to the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination to prove to us the real benefits of Gardasil. Sadly, her own presentation left me (Joan) and others filled with doubts. By her own admission, Gardasil has the doctors surrounding me glaring at a poor promise of efficacy as a vaccine married to a high risk of life-threatening side effects.
Gardasil, Dr. Harper explained, is promoted by Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, as a “safe and effective” prevention measure against cervical cancer. The theory behind the vaccine is that, as HPV may cause cervical cancer, conferring a greater immunity of some strains of HPV might reduce the incidence of this form of cancer. In pursuit of this goal, tens of millions of American girls have been vaccinated to date.

As I sat scribbling down Merck’s claims, I wondered why such mass vaccination campaigns were necessary. After all, as Dr. Harper explained, 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.

Dr. Harper further undercut the case for mass vaccination campaigns in the U.S. when she pointed out that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” (Harper serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO) for HPV vaccination in the developing world.) Indeed, she surprised her audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

If this is the case, I thought, then why vaccinate at all? From the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought had occurred to them.

In the U.S. the cervical cancer rate is 8 per 100,000 women.1 Moreover, it is one of the most treatable forms of cancer. The current death rate from cervical cancer is between 1.6 to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 cases of the disease.2 The American Cancer Society (ACS) notes that “between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and adds that “the death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.”3

At this point, I began to wriggle around in my seat, uncomfortably wondering, is the vaccine really effective? Using data from trials funded by Merck, Dr. Harper cheerfully continued to demolish the case for the vaccine that she was ostensibly there to promote. She informed us that “with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated, and in that case, the decrease will be very minimal. The highest amount of minimal decrease will appear in 60 years.”

It is hard to imagine a less compelling case for Gardasil. First of all, it is highly unlikely that 70% or more of the female population will continue to get routine Gardasil shots and boosters, along with annual PAP smears. And even if it did, according to Dr. Harper, “after 60 years, the vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical cancer.

But rates of death from cervical cancer are already declining. Let’s do the math. If the 4% annual decline in cervical cancer death continues, in 60 years there will have been a 91.4% decline in cervical cancer death just from current cancer monitoring and treatment. Comparing this rate of decline to Gardasil’s projected “very minimal” reduction in the rate of cervical cancer of only 70 % of incidences in 60 years, it is hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.

Despite these dismal projections, Gardasil continues to be widely and aggressively promoted among pre-teen girls. The CDC reports that, by 1 June 2009, over 26 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the U.S.4 With hopes of soon tapping the adolescent male demographic, Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of the vaccine, and certain Merck-funded U.S. medical organizations are targeting girls between the ages of 9 and 13.5 As CBS news reports, “Gardasil, launched in 2006 for girls and young women, quickly became one of Merck's top-selling vaccines, thanks to aggressive marketing and attempts to get states to require girls to get the vaccine as a requirement for school attendance.”6

Just as I began, in my own mind, to question ethics of mass vaccinations of prepubescent girls, Dr. Harper dropped another bombshell. “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years,” she told us.

Merck did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

If I wasn’t skeptical enough already, I really started scratching my head when Dr. Harper explained, “if you vaccinate a child, she won’t keep immunity in puberty and you do nothing to prevent cervical cancer.” But it turned out that she wasn’t arguing for postponing Gardasil vaccination until later puberty, as I first thought. Rather, Dr. Harper only emphasized to the doctors in the audience the need for Gardasil booster shots, because it is still unknown how long the vaccine immunity lasts. More booster shots mean more money for Merck, obviously.

I left Dr. Harper’s lecture convinced that Gardasil did little to stop cervical cancer, and determined to answer another question that she had largely ducked: Is this vaccine safe?
Here’s what my research turned up. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse effects include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.7

Dr. Harper, who seems to specialize in dropping bombshells, dropped another in an interview with ABC News when she admitted that “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”8 This being the case, one might want to take one’s chances with cancer, especially because the side effects of the vaccine are immediate, while the possibility of developing cancer is years in the future.

In the clinical studies alone, 23 girls died after receiving either Gardasil or the Aluminum control injection. 15 of the 13,686 girls who received Gardasil died, while 8 died among the 11,004 who received the Aluminum shot. There was only one death among the group that had a saline placebo. What this means is that 1 out of every 912 girls in the Gardasil clinical studies died. (9, see page 8.) The cervical cancer death rate is 1 out of every 40,000 women per year.10
The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates. Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review.”11 On average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal of Public Health.12

Given the severity and frequency of Gardasil adverse reactions, I definitely wasn’t the only one in Dr. Harper’s audience who winced when she dismissed most Gardasil side effects as “easily just needle phobia.”

Due to the young age of the trial participants and the short duration of the studies, the effects of Gardasil on female fecundity have not been studied. I did discover, in my post-conference reading, that Polysorbate 80, an ingredient in the vaccine (13, see page 12), has been observed in a European clinical study to cause infertility in rats.14 Is this an additional concern? Time will tell.

I do not wish to give the impression that Dr. Harper presented, even inadvertently, a consistently negative view of her own vaccine. She did tout certain “real benefits,” chief among them that “the vaccine will reduce the number of follow-up tests after abnormal PAP smears,” and thereby reduce the “relationship tension,” “stress and anxiety” of abnormal or false HPV positive results.

To me, however, this seems a rather slim promise, especially when weighed against the deaths and side effects caused by the Gardasil campaign. Should millions of girls in the United States, many as young as 9, be put at risk, so that sexually active adults can have less “relationship tension” about false positive Hepatitis results? Is the current rate of death, sterility and serious immune dysfunction from Gardasil worth the potential that in 60 years a minimal amount of a cervical disease (that is already decreasing on its own) may perhaps be reduced?

But what I really wanted to know is why Merck is so eagerly marketing such a dangerous and ineffective vaccine? Aren’t there other ways they could make a profit? While Merck’s behavior is probably adequately explained by the profit motive, what about those in the Health and Human Services bureaucracy who apparently see Gardasil as medicine’s gift to women? What motivates them?

I (Steve) think that they see Gardasil as what one might call a “wedge” drug. For them, the success of this public vaccination campaign has less to do with stopping cervical cancer, than it does with opening the door to other vaccination campaigns for other sexually transmitted diseases, and perhaps even including pregnancy itself. For if they can overcome the objections of parents and religious organizations to vaccinating pre-pubescent—and not sexually active—girls against one form of STD, then it will make it easier for them to embark on similar programs in the future.

After all, the proponents of sexual liberation are determined not to let mere disease—or even death—stand in the way of their pleasures. They believe that there must be technological solutions to the diseases that have arisen from their relentless promotion of promiscuity. After all, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate: They might have to learn to control their appetites. And they might have to teach abstinence.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute.
Joan Robinson is an Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Support this movie before we have to support OBAMACARE

Please visit the Blood Money Film website and register your support of this film. If the creators of the film can show there is support for seeing this film in theaters they will find a distributor willing to take a chance on this controversial topic. So please tell your friends, family, and your church and help build public support.

It needs to be released now, before OBAMACARE can do its damage!

Only 27% of the nation's voters strongly approve of the job Obama is doing

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Just when it appears pro-abortion President Barack Obama has finally reached rock bottom in his approval ratings descent, he falls even lower. With the Obama administration not only pushing a pro-abortion health care bill but accusing pro-life groups of lying to the American people about it, Obama loses more and more support. The Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll for Sunday shows just 27% of the nation's voters strongly approve of the job Obama is doing as president. That contrasts with the 41 percent who strongly disapprove. Rasmussen tracks the views of voters who have the strongest feelings one way or another, calling it the Presidential Approval Index, and this rating of -14 is the lowest Obama has seen since he took over the White House in January. Some of the decline has come from within Obama's own party as only 49% of Democrats offer such a positive assessment of the president at this time. At the other end of the spectrum, today’s total for the Strongly Disapprove answer matches the highest level yet recorded. The 41% mark was reached just once before and that came one week ago today. Seventy percent of Republicans now Strongly Disapprove along with 49% of those not affiliated with either major party. Overall, using a more conventional analysis, only 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance while 51% now disapprove.

Rosary Novena to begin October 27

Among the most important titles we have in the Catholic Church for the Blessed Virgin Mary are Our Lady of Victory and Our Lady of the Rosary. These titles can be traced back to one of the most decisive times in the history of the world and Christendom. The Battle of Lepanto took place on October 7 (date of feast of Our Lady of Rosary), 1571. This proved to be the most crucial battle for the Christian forces against the radical Muslim navy of Turkey. Pope Pius V led a procession around St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City praying the Rosary. He showed true pastoral leadership in recognizing the danger posed to Christendom by the radical Muslim forces, and in using the means necessary to defeat it. Spiritual battles require spiritual weapons, and this more than anything was a battle that had its origins in the spiritual order—a true battle between good and evil.

Today we have a similar spiritual battle in progress—a battle between the forces of good and evil, light and darkness, truth and lies, life and death. If we do not soon stop the genocide of abortion in the United States, we shall run the course of all those that prove by their actions that they are enemies of God—total collapse, economic, social, and national. The moral demise of a nation results in the ultimate demise of a nation. God is not a disinterested spectator to the affairs of man. Life begins at conception. This is an unalterable formal teaching of the Catholic Church. If you do not accept this you are a heretic in plain English. A single abortion is homicide. The more than 48,000,000 abortions since Roe v. Wade in the United States constitute genocide by definition. The group singled out for death—unwanted, unborn children.

No other issue, not all other issues taken together, can constitute a proportionate reason for voting for candidates that intend to preserve and defend this holocaust of innocent human life that is abortion.

I strongly urge every one of you to make a Novena and pray the Rosary to Our Lady of Victory between October 27th and Election Day, November 4th. Pray that God’s will be done and the most innocent and utterly vulnerable of our brothers and sisters will be protected from this barbaric and grossly sinful blight on society that is abortion. No woman, and no man, has the right to choose to murder an innocent human being.

May God grant us the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and counsel to form our conscience in accordance with authentic Catholic teaching, and then vote that well-formed Catholic conscience.

God Bless You

Fr. John Corapi


Click here to download a PDF copy to email, link and distribute this article freely.



Any of you who are moved by the subject matter in this article, you may want to check out this week's "Weekly Wisdom" Click here to see the schedule.

Fr. Frank just called our house!

We were sitting around playing a family game of Guitar Hero (it was my turn!) when the phone rang. My husband took the call, and after a few seconds urged us, "Turn off the game! Fr. Frank Pavone is coming on the phone!" As he hands me the phone, I say incredulously, "Aww, it's probably just a taped message." On the other end of the phone, just silence, and now I know it's just a solicitation. Then a voice, and it's not recorded- it was Fr. Frank Pavone-live and in person!

It was the strangest thing, but to any pro-lifer, Fr. Pavone is a celebrity! I felt my face grow hot, and I knew I was turning red. We're the type of family that never wins anything, not even $20 a 50/50 raffle!

I gathered my wits and tried to think of something to say. "This is certainly unexpected!" I said. Fr. Frank was his gentle self, and explained that he was making calls to supporters of Priests for Life to thank us. Sounded good to me!

We talked about his latest visit to Stamford, Fr. Frank commented on how well it was publicized. Of course, I had to mention that we are parishioners of St. Mary Church in Norwalk, the hub of pro-life in the Diocese of Bridgeport, thanks to Fr. Markey!

Moving on to business, Fr. Frank and I talked shop. I told him that Kevin and I are an NFP Teaching Couple. With this year being the 40th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae,Priests for Life is focusing on how an understanding of Natural Family Planning , as respect for the source of life, is the key to ending abortion. This is a year long project at Priests for Life, which began July 2007, and will culminate with the anniversary on July 25, 2008.

There is lots of great info on the Priests for Life page called Abortion, Contraception, Natural Family Planning, Humanae Vitae.

We ended our conversation with a promise to pray for each other and our needs, and we said goodbye.

You just never know who's going to be on the other end of the phone!