Title Here

Response to Father Francis

To Fr. Francis McCloskey:  Please tell me it wasn't YOU who wrote, "begging politicians is basically a pro-choice activity even if you beg for life."

This kind of talk condemns. It is divisive and insulting. It is judging towards the wrong people. I respectfully ask, who is anyone to call what I and others do "begging politicians," even in righteous anger? I know it is all going to be done God's way, whatever way that is, and I fight this culture of death from as many angles as humanly possible, because maybe God's way includes ALL of the weapons He gives us. I know there are those here in Bridgeport who condemn and ridicule me for suggesting people write and call their politicians and judges, or attend a D.C. march. However, I do not suggest to people, "ONLY do just that and nothing else."

There is much more wrong with the pro-life movement of the last 30 years that cannot be attributed to just marches. Like the ignoring by Christians and Catholics nationwide of the 17 million post-abortive women who are probably silently suffering and wishing they could be healed and then in good conscience become visibly pro-life, perhaps to do something to make up for what we've done.

I applaud the alternative gathering in Bridgeport , however, please examine yourselves and be certain it is not about the "pomp and circumstance." It was a circus-like atmosphere that abounded at last year's April rally in front of that clinic; I was there. An example: there was an excess of attention and praise for the police horses that attended, way more than there should have been. There was only one woman that day who changed her mind and she only felt safe to leave late into the morning, AFTER the rally had ended and the microphones, speakers, horses and people had LEFT! Were there some who refused to change their minds, because they could not face walking back out through, in their minds, a "gauntlet"? I believe yes. That is not what we want to have happen at the abortion clinics, either, I think you'd agree.

Also, if someone cannot go to DC, I agree this could be good for them. But I hope this does not dissuade anyone from going to DC, and here's why:

PRO-ABORTION ACTIVISTS ARE WAKING UP: THEY'VE SCHEDULED A PARADOXICALLY-NAMED "SAVE WOMEN'S LIVES: MARCH FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE" April 25, 2004 in Washington , DC . The pro-abortion march by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Feminist Majority, NOW and NARAL starts at noon from the Lincoln Memorial, although people will probably start gathering as early as 10 a.m. After marching on Washington , a rally will be held from 1-4 p.m. on the National Mall.  http://www.marchforchoice.org/

MOST IMPORTANTLY (THIS IS FROM AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE'S WEBSITE): "The news media will make comparisons between the turn out for [the Pro-Abortion MFC] march and the numbers for the March for Life in January 2004. All pro-lifers should begin now planning for the largest attendance ever at the annual March for Life. Every church in every community and every pro-life group everywhere in America should send at least one bus each….Pray for poor attendance at the MFC in April…Groups like [your local] YWCA, League of Women Voters, Girl Scouts, Rotary Club, etc. need to know that if they choose to support [the MFC] march they will be forever branded as PRO-ABORTION."

I only ask you to consider my comments thoughtfully and prayerfully. Thank you.

God bless,

Annie Banno
OPERATION OUTCRY: SILENT NO MORE Connecticut; 203-820-9898; E-mail: smok22@charter.net ; National Toll-Free Helpline: 1-866-482-LIFE ; http://www.SilentNoMoreCampaign.com or http://www.operationoutcry.org

This is Father Francis' response:

Annie Banno's complaint brings to mind the occasional passerby who complains to those praying, counseling or holding signs at an abortuary that they/we are "condemning" those who have had abortions. Usually it turns out that the complainant has an unresolved abortion in his or her background and can't make the distinction between condemning the evil [abortion] and condemning the person. He or she feels personally condemned by my public display. It's the risk I have to take.

Or like the homosexual activists who won't let the Christian have his distinction between the sin and the sinner. If you don't accept homosexuality, they say, you hate homosexuals.

Recall the famous maxim of the schoolmen:  quidquid recipitur secundum modo recipientis recipitur - whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver.  General Robert E. Lee admitted after the Appomatox surrender that the south should never have gone to war over slavery. But prior to that he and the south were enraged, not at slavery, but that the north should sit in judgment of the southern "way of life", or so they thought, and so they fought. They had lost any memory of how General Horatio Gates, victorious at Saratoga 83 years earlier, went home to West Virginia and in an act of thanksgiving to God, set his slaves free. Now at Appomatox, if Lee could take back the previous four years he would have exhorted his fellow southerners to do as Horatio had done lest they suffer God's reprisal, maybe a civil war with tons of bloodshed.

My piece was describing an activity I have engaged in once or twice myself. I was describing it, not according to the dispositions of those who engage in it but according to its objective reality. Annie B. was just not able to receive it in that vein. I'm like that myself. Don't tell me something I'm doing is counterproductive even if it is.

But the hope is that upon reflection we will begin to understand its truth, maybe even intuit it. Hopefully not like Lee, after increased bloodshed in a losing cause, but by reading and re-reading what I said, resisting the temptation to rip sentences out of context, and salt the whole thing with prayer.