SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT (DRAFT)

I filed a criminal federal complaint that could overturn abortion fundamentally, that is to say, eradicate it. It is the Roe v. Wade of pro-lifers, that will overturn fundamentally the thinking and acting of the entire society in many aspects on a grassroots level so that reversing it constitutionally thereafter should be nothing more than a rubber stamp deal. It is David’s stone in a slingshot that takes the enemy, unexpectedly and easily. This complaint is being suppressed at the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

What do I mean by suppressed, besides a lack of enforcement of the law? And lack of enforcement is not equivalent to a lack of action. Some of the action consists of transferring the matter to Disability Rights Section rather than Criminal Section at the Civil Rights Division and not permitting Disability Rights’ official transfer of the file to Criminal Section with eagle-eyed vigilance so that the complaint does not incur an accessible record that has the subjects’ name in it at the Criminal Section.  Or causing the complaint to disappear from the record altogether. Or discrediting me, and one FBI Special Agent did this so that it was noticeable so blatant is the pretense or insurance of immunity. Or the U.S. Attorney’s office retaliating also by discrediting me among other things, so that it even happened in a courtroom. Over the years and from agency to agency, it receives similar handling. And the handling becomes more vitriolic with the passing years.

 

And this year, I filed complaint against the handling with the Office of Inspector General for the Justice Department. I had filed a complaint at OIG back in 2002 also, and the OIG was going to open an investigation notwithstanding that it was not the routine type of fraud they handle, but then, suddenly, as a matter of discretion, I only received an acknowledgment, but it misrepresented the OIG’s function and said it was not in their jurisdiction because it was.  This year’s first complaint to the OIG disappeared from the record suddenly -- and this after a couple of follow-ups while I was told it was in review with an investigative specialist. And there was no way to recapture all that lost effort with that investigative specialist – it was as though the persons who handled it had disappeared from OIG’s employ and memory. It had to be hand-delivered and entered into their database anew. Almost immediately, I received a response indicating it was not in their jurisdiction, when it already was in their jurisdiction back in 2002. An investigator at OIG explained the criteria about jurisdiction and even an extension of the statute of limitations (if one applies), which criteria seemed to be met pretty squarely by the complaint because the criteria for the extension is that some high-ranking person is the one negotiating the handling.  Probably not even a department head negotiated this handling across the agencies and the across the years but rather someone who could tell department heads what to do is more likely, but can’t be ascertained without an official investigation, of course.  And, so I wound up filing another complaint according to what he explained was applicable.  I went into more detail about the same thing and shoveled over myriads of exhibits as well, but the OIG had sufficient information in 2002 already to cause them to decide to investigate and follow up with me for additional information. After all, the complainant or victim is not an investigator and cannot know what is relevant entirely but would only be able to relate what is logically alarming.  The OIG is supposed to take it from there, but I still gave them a good amount of what they would have to do if not everything on a silver platter by resubmitting the complaint with all that additional information.  This investigator gave me his e-mail address to insure it got to the right person, when such people do not even give out their names if there’s no legitimate investigation ensuing, let alone that there is already an avenue available to complainants to send such information. And that new complaint and allegations that had e-mail exhibits as well as other very good qualification in hard copy, was not even acknowledged as such except for the overt hostile resentment displayed by OIG personnel over having to receive it. Ultimately, I was given an OIG file copy of the previous rejection letter in response to this new submission, so that there was no record accessible to me that another complaint was even made.

 

I filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act request for records) expecting to be able to get at least what I sent to the OIG as a confirmation that the complaint was received, although I expected I would be denied their work product and criminal records. They denied the request based on FOIA 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(6) and (7)(C), which means it invades the privacy of those employees against whom I complained, and also third parties, so that the information cannot be released, not what I sent them, not even a version with exempt information segregated, but rather nothing at all.  I was told they wouldn’t be investigating and usually only when there’s an investigation is such information not releasable under FOIA.  What they did release is what appears to be a printout of a database entry, with an employee name segregated, and my complaint is described as being civil rather than criminal, and against unspecified persons (which directly contradicts the reason for denial under FOIA), and they otherwise substantially misrepresent the content and nature of the file and complaint to the OIG, and also the complaint about the OIG that I had to make in addition to Glenn Fine, the Inspector General. One would never know from this record that the complaint to the Justice Department was regarding criminal issues, including criminal civil rights violations, or that I filed a second complaint with extensive exhibits with the OIG this year, or that I wrote to Glenn Fine about the OIG in complaint against OIG employees. That correspondence to Fine, unlike the second OIG complaint with exhibits, is mentioned specifically by date in the printout released under FOIA, but it omits that it went to Fine and actually misrepresents the content and true nature of that correspondence altogether. 

 

I filed a FOIA appeal and received a letter immediately in response that denied me the expedite handling that I had received with the original FOIA request but without accessing records I offered as qualification.  I would have need to go to court to obtain expedite handling, and winning would bump other requests and put mine first, but going to court to get that would do me no good in terms of actually getting anything done on a fast track.  It’s probably equivalent or even faster to just wait while the appeal request is placed in the queue behind other non-urgent requests, and in fact I did receive a response about 4 months later that says I will receive what I sent them directly from OIG, although it will probably have segregated information in it.  That’s what I expected to get in the first place.  I’m waiting to see now what I get.

 

About a month before receiving this ultimate response from FOIA Appeal, apropos to nothing, I received a letter from FOIA on OIG letterhead.  The FOIA agency and the FOIA appeal agency are two separate agencies with two separate addresses and two separate reference numbers, and this was not from the appeal agency.  This letter indicated that documents (plural, not singular) responsive to my request were reviewed and attached, and that these documents consisted of 25 pages, and that nothing was exempted. I would have to check it page by page to insure nothing was modified before I appeal it, but what is attached looks like a printout on the government computer of my original FOIA request which was e-mailed, and which contained a partial index that I intended to update further except I immediately received the denial and so I only sent a complete index when I made the FOIA appeal.  That was what those 25 pages contained, not the documents of my complaint, but only my original FOIA request.  Nevertheless, if you read the cover letter, it sounds like they are attaching all the applicable documents, 25 pages worth, and that nothing is exempt from FOIA.  It seems that what they did was to still NOT release anything to me, but to nevertheless create a record that said that they released everything, and that everything consisted of only 25 pages of documents.  Part of the vitriolic behavior I endured when I followed up about what I had sent to the OIG was rude reproach that I had made them run out of toner with my faxing of exhibits.  I sent them reams of faxed documents, and the 25-page FOIA request containing the partial index was only a partial index of the e-mailed documents, those that went mostly to the investigative specialist’s e-mail address, and contained no information about the faxed hard copy documents at all or two other e-mail indices of about equal length to the one contained in the original FOIA request.  This letter instructs me that if I’m dissatisfied with this response, I may file an appeal within 60 days, and thereafter my recourse is judicial review.  I didn’t send FOIA another request to have caused this correspondence to be sent.  I have been information picketing in front of the OIG, both the headquarters in DC and the Washington Field Office, which happens to be in Rosslyn, Virginia, the FBI, the White House, and once even the U.S. Attorney’s office, among other places I information picket, such as the Arlington Courthouse where this complaint matter originated, the Cathedral of St. Thomas More where Bishop Loverde is stationed, St. Agnes Catholic Church.  But on January 25, 2007 when I called to follow-up after speaking with the FOIA Hotline attorney, I learned that there was no other response pending for me, notwithstanding the letter from FOIA Appeal dated later than this.  So I included the new information into that FOIA Appeal letter. 

 

When my record disappeared at the Civil Rights Division in 2002, I made a FOIA request too, and the record reappeared.  And I received at least what I sent Civil Rights Division for the most part, although they exempted altogether some pre-deliberative information.  And while there were employee names and third party information contained in that record, nothing was segregated.  With the OIG, they won't release the record and then create a record so it looks like they released everything.  The OIG has outdone the agencies it is supposed to correct, with far worse.

 

There is resistance in receiving this information at agencies. Where resistance in receiving information fails and it is received nevertheless, then the record disappears. Where disappearance of the record is addressed unavoidably by virtue of follow-up or a FOIA request, then the true content and nature of the complaint is misrepresented. And I therefore am discredited by that misrepresentation alone, if not by direct slander as well. If I report the matter to another agency that receives my information with alarm and so contacts the agency about which I complain, then it becomes administrative error.  If when it becomes administrative error I then expect proper handling to then ensue now that the error is discovered, then there is no error but the handling was correct.  And effectively, the complaint doesn’t get handled for justice.  This is what I mean by, the complaint is being suppressed.

 

Is this because our federal government – law enforcement -- is really pro-abortion?  Does the abortion industry have a stranglehold on law enforcement? Many pro-lifers would say, yes, and based on unfair treatment and harassing experiences when counseling or protesting clinics. I would say, the abortion industry is not the only one with a stranglehold on law enforcement and a dictate on what laws get enforced and which ones suffer the effect of abusive discretion, and no matter the effect on the country. It would appear that law enforcement is pro-whatever it is that the persons law enforcement supports want, however inconsistent. Until recently, they were pro-child sex abuse because they protected priests against the criminal consequences of their actions. Whatever tipped that scale against the clergy on that particular issue, Catholic clergy may still have this favor on other law enforcement matters. This criminal federal complaint that would eradicate abortion is against the Bishop of Arlington, Paul Loverde, and the Falls Church police, et al., and among the issues are violent violations of first amendment rights, discrimination, and police misconduct.

 

I protested the Commonwealth Women’s Clinic (CWC) near St. James Catholic Church in Falls Church, Virginia , and was blamed as the cause for their moving away from there by an escort of the clinic. The clinic owner, escorts and even some of the clients, as some of you may know, were a violent bunch and did not make it easy to protest or offer counseling to those who desired it. But they were no match for the employees and/or volunteers of St. James Catholic Church, unfortunately, from whom I endured assault, threatening behaviors and harassment as well, including calling the police apropos to nothing. In fact, it was the owner of the clinic who got me out from under a false trespassing report to the Falls Church police, and he didn’t make the report.  And these behaviors were more escalated than what I had to endure from the abortion clinic for the most part. Where Wayne Codding would come out in a frenzy to pursue physical proximity to me on a public street to create a situation where he could say I touched him in some way, the people at St. James came out and assaulted and battered me outright.  In addition, my methodology seemed to be under attack and scrutiny by the diocese and those who either utilized the diocesan methodology or reported back and forth, and notwithstanding the success of my methodology. That is to say, the first two times I spoke to clients resulted in two rescues. Each time there was someone who either was proponent of the diocesan methodology or was learning it, who criticized my methodology. I was criticized the first time directly after the rescue, and with the second rescue, by virtue of follow-up over that rescue. The rescue didn’t seem to be important at all, only the methodology. Additionally, I was given Project Rachel pamphlets to distribute, which I was glad to do, upon request or AFTER the woman had obtained the abortion, although certainly beforehand I would show that pamphlet in order to point out that with abortion one would invariably need psychological services, given that the child was assessed as burdensome or expensive. This was apparently not sufficient. I kept getting reminders to distribute these pamphlets along with all the other information on the way into the clinic – and I kept omitting it. To distribute this pamphlet when the decision has not been executed as yet is to say, Go ahead and have your abortion because even though you will need psychological help, the diocese will pay for it. I wasn’t there to tell anyone to get an abortion, directly or by virtue of distributing this pamphlet.  I refused to put abortion on an equal footing with the other courses of action because adoption or keeping a child are not alternatives to abortion, but rather, abortion is in a category by itself and cannot be grouped with other possibilities. Adoption or otherwise keeping the child alive are options. Abortion is a tragic decision, always, and I would not even by virtue of distributing a Project Rachel pamphlet compromise my communicating that about abortion. My aim was to defend the child and be merciful to the mother, and so I could not distribute that pamphlet in the fashion the diocese apparently expected by virtue of its representatives, whether or not these made themselves known as such.  And neither was I obliged to the diocese to utilize that methodology, not legally, of course, but not by virtue of being Catholic myself either.

 

Obedience didn’t apply here.  Obedience to the magisterium required me to be against abortion, to never obtain one, and to not help anyone else obtain one either.  The freedom of speech of the diocese was protected in requiring that of everyone, and also requiring charity and other obligations of Christians.  But the first amendment of the diocese was not necessarily protected in dictating HOW one fulfilled one’s obligations as a Christian, for instance, to serve at soup kitchens or clean house for the elderly.  And as far as disseminating information at abortion clinics went, the diocese could rightfully take issue if I distributed, say, information for contraception as an alternative to abortion since contraception is against the Catholic faith, but not that I should distribute Project Rachel pamphlets to women on their way into the clinic, or even at all.  My first amendment rights were protected there, however.

 

I used the poster of a child dead by virtue of abortion, of course, because I do not speak every language, and when a prospective patron sees this, there can be no question about the tragedy in choosing abortion. The doctor who did abortions on Friday became squeamish over that picture and would turn around and leave his appointments. That picture said it all. And violent issue was also taken with the use of that picture. One of those who attacked us verbally at St. James, a volunteer or employee of St. James, said he was so angry with us for protesting that clinic that he would double his contributions to NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League). I had already written to the Bishop about a genocide-level use of that clinic by Hispanics, many of whom needed to be educated on their obligations as Catholics because upon communicating that they were automatically excommunicated, some left. And the Hispanics received this necessary information as a community as a result. Not so with the people at St. James, the blue-eyed variety, the supporter of NARAL and those others who assaulted and harassed.  In the first incident, the assault was by a volunteer or employee of St. James, and in incidents thereafter also.  The faithful at St. James didn’t do very much to protest that clinic, those who did were generally not from St. James.  And while I heard that St. James faithful had been ugly to protesters as well, my experiences were mostly with the employees and/or volunteers.  And I didn’t get the impression so much that the Bishop didn’t like Hispanics, but rather that there might have been an interest in appeasing the people at St. James while the Hispanics just got what they should have gotten.  Correcting the Hispanics seemed to be a straight-forward issue of providing the requisite formation as obliged, even though it seemed to me that the diocese went at the Hispanics frontally over it – not at all like the methodology they use toward abortion patrons -- while correcting the supporter of NARAL and the other pro-choice behaviors seemed to be quite a sensitive issue.  It went without answer, then and even now, after all these years, I still don’t know where the funding for Project Rachel comes from and neither have I received so much as an apology about what happened there, which is something that should have settled the matter immediately insofar as these issues of the complaint are concerned, especially because I then should not have had the opportunity to learn anything else. 

 

Indeed, instead of a correction, I received a letter from Laird full of gratuitous comment, and literature, including an article by Gerri Laird that had such excessive highlighting that it was tantamount to screaming at me, although what all the highlighting was about was that no one should use anything but a gentle mannerism. I don’t know why the Lairds directed that to me because I didn’t use the methodology she was suggesting I used by virtue of all that highlighting, although neither was mine the methodology in which the diocese wanted people to be trained. I merely asked to speak to people, and found out why they were there, and followed up according to what I learned.  I received an example of the diocesan methodology from the person who told me he had been going back and forth with Laird about me and my methodology and who followed up with me as a result of hearing about that second rescue.  This person told me not to talk but watch.  And so he demonstrated by saying to a couple entering: “Hello, Mom, hello, Dad, know that whatever you decide to do today, that your child will go to heaven and you are forgiven.” This training by its imposition on me seemingly to catch me before I went any further with my methodology, and the mannerism used in this training by its very nature, was in direct contrast with the exceedingly pro-choice laissez-faire message sent to the abortion patrons. And it’s not that there was no interest in what the abortion patrons were doing, but rather an interest in letting them know that whatever it was they did was quite all right, so much as that they were assured they would not lose anything by virtue of any choice they made, even those things which were out of the control of the one making such a promise.  And whatever I did was not all right but I had to just do what I was being told apparently.

 

I was not in the habit of criticizing another’s methodology myself given that it’s really God who in the end blesses whatever best effort one makes, but since I was being taken to task about it, I did have much to criticize there. As I said, before giving his demonstration he told me not to speak but to listen, and he did this by also putting his finger to his lips in a manner that communicates, with at least fed-up annoyance, “KEEP QUIET”, and his own upper lip curled up when he told me I needed to go for training. He didn’t have to tell me to listen because I already was. It was the second rescue for which I was criticized, and it seemed apparent that the diocesan methodology was for its own sake, or at least the goal was not to defend the child. And this person did confirm this, without being asked, by telling me that the child’s life was secondary but the mother’s soul is what we were really after.

 

If you ask me, this sounds like a negotiation with God and I expect that God will have no part in it because it ignores atrocity and misnomers that “mercy.” Why? So that this “mercifulness” can obtain the license to do just whatever because in the end, the merciful are supposed to receive mercy no matter whatever. And if one can treat the committer of the most atrocious crime as though his crime were equivalent to a foible, then certainly one can live as one wishes and when one closes one’s eyes for the final time, one can do so unconcerned about one’s own atrocities because since one was merciful to the atrocious during one’s life, then one is entitled to the same upon one’s death. This “mercy” does not apply to those not committing atrocities, however, for these the abrupt or worse mannerism will do, especially as regards insuring leniency toward the committers of atrocity.  This is not confidence in God but presumption, along with 1) dereliction toward the defenseless; 2) judgment against the defenseless of being unworthy of their inalienable rights; and 3) capitalizing on this vulnerability of the defenseless to be indulgent to their oppressors to obtain that same leniency in license for oneself.  And coming from clergy, a Bishop, this is not the act of a shepherd, but a sheep merchant.  After that violent incident, there was no correction, but rather more violence and harassment, by among others, an employee of St. James. A Falls Church police officer went to St. James and felt comfortable proposing that while he could not stop me from protesting at the clinic because it was my constitutional right, he could get a thug to break my legs. Inasmuch as what this police officer did does not necessarily implicate the Church automatically by virtue of his doing it, true pro-life shows in everything one does. True pro-life is being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove -- rather than being overtly gentle in mannerism but then doing seemingly whatever is necessary to insure one’s interest. And the history that this diocese has in ill-using pro-lifers made use of this police force. And if defending the child was not the purpose of that methodology, then I have trouble believing that concern over the mother’s soul is the purpose. And the mannerism used with pro-lifers was not always or necessarily gentle, not even only on the surface. Certainly this imposed training was rude at the very least. It just doesn’t add up.

 

Fr. Pavone, who also uses similar posters, was banned from Arlington during the diocese’s conflict with me, and then he was also deposed from his position as president of Priests4Life. He was scheduled to speak at the Chancellor’s parish, but that was cancelled because of his use of his methodology.  I heard he was reinstated when I filed the complaint, though. Additionally, Joe Scheidler was asked to speak at the Chancellor’s parish right after Justice received the complaint.  Scheidler’s methodology was not similar to mine – or Fr. Pavone’s -- except in the use of the posters.  I did not cuff myself to the clinic to block entry or get myself arrested but stayed within the logical, effective, and legal, which was what was possible for me personally, and Fr. Pavone also did similarly as far as I know.  But he used the pictures, like I did.  Why cancel Pavone’s talk at the same church, and then invite Scheidler, whose methodology not only included the abhorred posters but also extreme methods that the diocese certainly disapproved of if they didn’t like anything but a prayerful presence, an “aura” of prayer, as I was once told it’s called?  It seemed to be necessary to prove there was nothing over which to violate my freedom of speech since there was agreement or tolerance of other methodology that was considered far more extreme than mine, at least, before I filed a complaint anyway.  But, actually, if they suddenly obtained a tolerance for Joe Scheidler’s methodology, even an admiration, so much so that they invited him to speak there where they cancelled out their own Fr. Pavone, there still wasn’t tolerance of my methodology.  But if the diocese demonstrated by this invitation that they had tolerance for Scheidler’s methodology, then it communicated that they also had tolerance for mine, inasmuch as the response to my letter to Loverde about the assault and the NARAL supporter from the diocese was full of gratuitous comment so that it appeared that they neither understood nor cared what my methodology was but were only interested that I should adopt theirs.  They labeled and referred to my methodology by virtue of these gratuitous comments in a derogatory fashion and opposed it, and regardless of the success rate.  As long as I was not using theirs, it didn’t matter what I used, it was wrong, because what they were telling me was to use theirs, and what they said about other methodologies of which they obviously didn’t approve didn’t necessarily apply to mine.  It appeared that when Scheidler was invited, they just needed to get past this obstacle of my complaint.  Obedience seemed to have taken care of Fr. Pavone, whatever he thought of the situation, he did not go against them that I learned about.  After the complaint was derailed, though, I continued to have problems protesting CWC although CWC moved not too long thereafter.  There was no surprise in this because I continued having problems after I first wrote to Loverde regarding those problems.

 

Arlington diocese, including at St. James Catholic Church, has a history of such abuses toward pro-lifers and so toward those who abide by the magisterium, the known principles of the Catholic faith. My complaint could stand alone and did not need this history, but that history was also relevant and so I included as much as I learned about it in the complaint. When I filed that federal complaint, I really had no choice. I was devoting my time and resources, and accomplishing something that I would have been very grateful to receive. And I wasn’t going to stop – and neither should I have done so – only because there were those who overtly and/or violently objected. And we are supposed to defend the Church, not protect bad priests or bad Catholics, just so that the Church doesn’t look bad. If it’s not an important matter, of course, why make such a matter known except to sow discord? But if it is a crucial issue, St. Paul corrected the first Bishop of Rome on an issue of far lesser import, and as to others who were wolves in sheep’s clothing, he made that very public and spared no criticism because he would have had to account for those who fell prey to such as these wolves. And, so he was obliged to warn people and as a result, truly defended the Church by divorcing the Church from such as these and their obstinate actions, among other thing, by insuring that it was known.

 

I asked Justice Department for the funding for Project Rachel. The Justice Department never responded to that, and if they were going to overlook violence because Loverde did not himself come running after me to do me violence but rather those for whom he might have insured apology did this, they could have written to me to tell me I was mistaken about questioning Project Rachel’s funding because it came from, say, church baskets, so that my observation that the people from St. James behaved like they owned the clinic and public street around it by virtue of their objection to my protesting on a public street along with past issues in the history of that diocese with pro-lifers, was merely fortuitous. This should have served to exonerate altogether in terms of these particular issues of the complaint and would have better protected the interests of the diocese than what they did because what they did doesn’t exonerate but rather just obstructs justice, exacerbating the need for a complaint with additional serious issues involving more people. I brought to Justice’s attention that elected officials of unions participate in special masses as such, and nothing is said about the fact that for the majority, their union constitutions contain resolutions that are not only pro-abortion, but pro-progressive agenda. Elected officials govern and so differ from other employees who do not have such authority, because with authority comes apropos accountability. I worked in a union and I know that they kept this information from their dues-paying members as possible. They had their own agenda, which issues they included in labor issues for which they were supposed to be lobbying, and prudently knew that people would take offense at such as pro-abortion resolutions and so avoided making these known. I observed with a poll they took of members that already beforehand they intended to publish the results according to what suited them and not the actual tally, and this was referred to as, “we’ll do what we always do.” I myself was a member of OPEIU#2 (Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 2) and had requested a refund of dues for that portion going to PAC Committees when the union was going to take a position on abortion because, as I pointed out, this was not a labor issue. The union didn’t take a position then, but thereafter the laws were changed and dues-paying members could no longer request such refunds. Workers have to – through earning their very bread and butter – pay to bring about a way of life to which they might seriously object, or else not work at their chosen employment, or even perhaps at the only available job. Now that’s holding a society by the shorthairs and ramming an agenda down the throats of others, for all the “freedoms” for which these very progressive-agenda proponents would sensitively claim entitlement for themselves.  Freedom is not equivalent to license, but what I describe here is license.

 

Why does the diocese hover over the methodology, the street upon which I protested that was near the clinic, as though the clinic or the street or the protesting were things to which they had a right or vested interest? As if they owned the place? What did they care how I protested, as long as I wasn’t breaking the law? Why did my counseling bother them? Better, yet, where does the funding for Project Rachel come from? Why won’t Justice just answer the question? Does it come from unions? Organized crime? What was the deal there – “We’ll pay for your Project Rachel, as long as the methodology that’s utilized does not give abortion a bad name” – was that the deal? No posters of deceased mauled children coupled with hedging around the reality of abortion by the choice of words and otherwise indulging the mother in her feelings and justifying these by calling those feelings “pain” in a pained voice, rather than defend the child’s rights, which should wake the mother up to the reality and more effectively cause her to change her mind, and happily. The methodology required a demeanor of feigned gentleness rather than authentic love and mercy. It seemed that if one did not use this mannerism, then one’s methodology, regardless of what it consisted of, was viewed as overtly harsh and merciless, even if there was no screaming and even if the truth was effectively communicated so as to cause the abortion client to leave because the mother was able to figure out by herself that she was making a tragic error – and this is the greatest of mercies. The demeanor – the methodology – was more important than the defense of the child; it seemed to exist for its own sake. And many of those who learned it, taught it, practiced it with a license, all seemed to feel really good about themselves and seemed to have their little network, even going so far as reporting back and forth to the diocese about a differing methodology. Prayer, an aura of prayer, and do nothing proactive, seemed to be the methodology they wanted utilized.  I doubt any of these people has done that to obtain a job but rather did the necessary to pound the pavement to find something suitable that would provide as nice a livelihood as could be obtained.  And speaking of jobs, rather than a job one should be working himself out of, this methodology seemed a well-financed undertaking and it was going to take off and it was the only way. And, why?, to that last assertion. I saw no practical correlation between that and the Pope’s encyclicals and teaching, although they talked a lot about that and purported it to be what the Pope intended. I was told the child will go to heaven, what’s important is the mother’s soul. Somehow, I can’t picture JPII -- the Pope that helped bring down the Iron Wall -- saying that the child’s life is secondary, especially when it’s logical that the mother’s soul would be saved by virtue of her understanding that the child’s life is not secondary to anything.

 

If the mother’s soul is of utmost importance and everything else is secondary including the child’s life -- if those two can be separated and they can only be separated by persons seriously lacking in integrity -- well then it would appear they might have a pact with Satan and a place for the mother’s soul in hell because she’ll be more likely to go there complacently, “feeling good about herself” rather than bad about what she’s about to do so that she can avoid it and really feel good – about herself, and her child, and appreciate life itself. If she does not wind up there, and I believe God is merciful and does everything possible to prevent it, it won’t be because of that methodology but because of God, and in spite of that methodology. How is it that it is perceived that by telling the truth, one is negating God’s forgiveness? Or judging the mother? Yes, God forgives. Of course, He does. But God will not dispense with the memory of a child – Whom He created to be a permanent fixture in the Kingdom – only because the existence of such a memory will make the mother feel bad. She’s going to wind up “feeling” bad for the rest of her life, and struggling with that grief no matter the therapy she receives. Some things can get better, but they never go away, because she herself will not want to forget that child or want that the child should be forgotten. She will never stop missing that child even if she forgives herself because as long as she lives, that child will not be on this earth as she is going to know he might have been. Forgiveness does not diminish consequences, necessarily, although God can waive these sometimes depending upon those things that only God can know -- and not those utilizing the methodology of the diocese and playing “God” as it were. It misrepresents God’s mercy to give this impression and assess it ahead of time.  A Catholic has to confess to a priest to get communion if the confession would contain a mortal sin – a serious sin -- but that’s not necessary to get forgiveness. Not to diminish the value of God’s forgiveness because it obtains eternal life, but God is bigger than any sin and so one can obtain forgiveness by merely wanting it no matter what the crime and at any time, anywhere.  It’s as free as the air we breathe, and as vital.   It won’t necessarily derail the consequences of one’s sins, but forgiveness is why Christ died and to those who will receive it, He is always ready to give it. But one has to receive it, and one can’t unless one realizes that there’s a need for repentance.  Additionally, one cannot sift through the garbage for a child that has been aborted, and the woman who aborts her child will want to do that even if she has been forgiven. People who are not guilty of their child’s death never get over it, so the one who actually causes the child’s death will live with profound regret because of missing that child alone. And this methodology of the diocese indulges the feelings of the mother on her way into the clinic and focuses on that as primary, rather than pointing out to her that she’s making a tragic error and waking her up, drawing her attention away from herself, which will save her soul on an eternal level, not to mention, the child’s life here and now, which will spare her this tragedy while she’s still on this earth. If one is going to separate the two issues, the mother’s perceptions and feelings from the defense of the child, then her feelings after the child is gone should be the ones in focus rather than making sure the Project Rachel pamphlet is with the other literature on the way in – and that they used to confiscate at CWC anyway. Sparing the mother that pain is the real mercy rather than sparing her the immediate discomfort of becoming horrified with herself because this might affect her self-esteem ephemerally and she might not be able to handle that. Rather, she’ll be glad she could bow her head in shame at the thought of what she was about to do – very grateful – ultimately. Those women are not stupid like that methodology implies by virtue of that intense focus on and indulgence of her feelings. They’re grateful for the heads up as anyone who is about to get run over by a bus would be as a result of being averted of the impending danger, although one would not necessarily scream to avert the mother going into a clinic. And this is not because the methodology is right that one should not show appropriate alarm (that methodology does not seem to be well-versed in what is appropriate anyway) but rather focus on the feelings of the mother who would be crushed or offended by such screaming – or God forbid become appropriately alarmed herself -- but rather because there’s no scream blood-curdling or loud enough to respond to the atrocity of abortion, even if the din of traffic would not drown out the scream.  Rather, a poster of a deceased child can do the screaming much louder than I’ll ever be able to scream, and appropriately, because it will communicate the reason for the alarm as well as sound the alarm, and in every language. And for all the methodology’s judgment that it was better for the child to die than to disturb the delicate balance of the mother’s mental or emotional state or in any way jar her feelings, I never heard one of these persons say a requiem for the children who went into the clinics and who then never emerged.  I don’t know why they were there – maybe they had nothing better to do on Saturdays and needed an excuse to go have a hearty enjoyable breakfast with like-thinking friends afterward – but I was there to defend the lives of those children out of my own time and resources, and I didn’t appreciate the interference.

 

In other places, the Church might use a different methodology or not necessarily criminally afflict those who don’t utilize the Church’s methodology, if there is one official methodology in each location. This issue may not be applicable to Arlington only because Project Rachel is in many places in the U.S. But only an investigation of Arlington and Project Rachel could possibly unearth that, and whatever the source for this criminal behavior, it is an element we do not want in the Catholic Church whether it’s only Arlington , and especially if it is not. Arlington has a history, however, of ill-using pro-lifers. It became known as a result of obdurately persisting in this ill-use, and so an investigation would have to start there.

 

And so, how would this eradicate and overturn abortion? The enforcement of the law. Why was Terri Schiavo murdered? Because of favor toward Mr. Schiavo from the law. Because exceptions are made regarding serious laws, not small issues but those of great magnitude to accommodate those who have a stranglehold on law enforcement or some other favor or backing. It would expose corruption, eradicate those who do not abide by the good laws of this land or even capitalize by the use of discretion, and put such law enforcers behind bars. Enough cannot be said about the effect this would have, especially when one considers that Roe v. Wade only became law as a result of corruption. This would in turn set an example for those who would do similarly if given the opportunity. And even though that should be enough to eradicate abortion, it would occur all over this abortion issue. The progressive agenda didn’t become standard overnight, it was introduced subtlely and gradually, re-educating us all into tolerant submission.  Therefore, it is no small thing to say that all this would make a statement. It would make shallow actions and decisions un-cool. It would give the unborn child press, and re-emphasize the child’s right to its own life without having to apologize or explain for considering the unborn child equal to the mother and the rest of us who are “already here.” It would educate – and help re-parent where necessary -- the people in this country to take offense at abortion rather than at protesters, who ruin people’s lunches by virtue of holding up a realistic poster of what an abortion looks like to represent what is really happening behind closed doors at a clinic, rather than something macabre, like a happy child – and this out of respect for the child who is about to die inside, who deserves such respect. Not because people don’t have a right to protest with a happy baby sign, but they shouldn’t be told to use that instead of a poster of a child dead by abortion.  It’s an abortion clinic, not a pregnancy center and not a funeral.  People would start becoming horrified at the clinic and its practices rather than at the protesters. If there is one thing I can pinpoint that caused CWC to move, it was this exposure, pressure from the neighborhood that was redirected at the clinic after it became apparent that I was not going to stop using that poster. Because when I was approached, violently or otherwise, so as to be convinced to not use that poster at least, I would point out the correlation between the use of the poster and the abortions taking place at the clinic, so that if the clinic stopped having abortions, they then would never see me again. The doctor started abandoning his Friday appointments because the sign made him squeamish. The truth re-sets priorities for people. A belief in sexual license should not override the life of another automatically because the child who is discarded also has a right to his sexuality and causing others to endure such a sign and advising them to overcome their feelings when they object because it ruined their day is to point out equality between them and the child in the clinic being murdered, and the weight of their rights to have a pleasant day as opposed to the weight of the child’s right to his life, and therefore, the protester’s obligation to make the matter known for what it truly is.  To defend such a child, to defend any defenseless person, is to defend all -- and one day such as those who take offense at the defense might need just such a defense themselves and will not obtain it if not ruining someone’s lunch outranks making an atrocity known. Such enlightenment accurately defines justice and mercy and judgment, and one does not have to go to everyone to try to instill it but rather they will come to you to give you the opportunity because you have a sign that shows a very harrowingly disturbing truth. When this is done, it can no longer be exclaimed gratuitously and carelessly that defending the child is equivalent to judging the mother, but rather it will be seen clearly that the mother is the only one making judgments, about the child, his worthiness of his own life, and about the execution of that judgment, the sentence of abortion, and that is the real reason she is sensitive about the presence of a pro-lifer at the clinic and immediately feels like she’s being judged. And all this exposure would also lift the skirts of the progressive agenda, its deadly shallowness, and remove its influence by stranglehold on the society and the economy. But the violation of the freedom of speech of others in order to mute the impact of the sign and the truth of the message, would deprive people of this edification. And in this case, such attempts at muting the horror were so relentless that it occurred to me of necessity that there had to be more to it than just wanting to control my behavior. After all, if they didn’t care that children were dying next door, why did they care that I went there to get people to change their minds or to at least make the matter known.  They cared about what I was doing, but not about what was being done at the clinic.  So it’s not that they thought people should just mind their business because to go there merely to tell people that anything they should choose to do is all right is the height of intrusion and impertinent as well, given that the people being addressed are in fact doing exactly what they choose.  And so correcting such violations, yes, even freedom of speech violations inflicted by those at the Catholic Church who think that whatever occurs to them is suddenly a known tenet of the faith and requirement to the faithful, would serve to further edify, nationwide, even there where one has not had one’s first amendment rights violated. And then, you’ll see an end to blatantly corrupt responses like the one to McCorvey’s amicus brief. And you’ll see that when such as Roe v. Wade is overturned, that it’ll stay that way, because what’s behind the progressive agenda, corruption, has been revealed and addressed for what it is. All pro-life initiatives will be effective once this complaint is handled for justice.  But without that, all pro-life initiatives and work will be an ongoing career for those who like to be able to say they are saving children, and that this line of work brings about togetherness and fellowship -- success in such a job would necessarily interfere with their livelihood.

 

Contact Information:  Anna Maria Agolli [email protected]

Copyright, Anna Maria Agolli, January 31, 2007 (Feast of St. John Bosco) By submitting this piece, I relinquish no rights or claims to it, but am merely making information known.