Pro-Life | Blogger Priest

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 8

Posted on January 19, 2015 by Father Joe

“We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.”

Why? God is out of the picture, so why care? No matter what we do, top scientists tell us that the universe is doomed. It is hard enough to care for ourselves and find happiness. Does it really make sense to care for others and generations unborn? We already abort half a million unborn children in the U.S. each year. If the living does not matter then caring about prospective people seems arbitrary and meaningless. Cold and honest atheistic logic cries out: “Maybe it would be better to let the poor and the defective die outright? If we eliminate the world’s refuse, then there will be more for us and the Western elite. We can make the world safe for endangered species by subtracting overcrowding populations of humans. Do we have any more right to the earth than the animals? Show me scientifically that we have an obligation to others and the future! Prove it or give it up. Our personal world might be better off if there were a few less mouths to feed.”

Anyway, we are all such hypocrites. Look at all the stuff we buy these days that comes from slave labor and where people are oppressed. If it is cheaper, it is better… that is today’s mantra. We take advantage of the poor and the worker. The host of Mythbusters can make up this commandment… but even his television show bobble heads and DVDs are manufactured in Chinese sweatshops. We can thus avoid paying local workers at all and pay others a non-livable wage. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer! Yeah, we really care about others… NOT!

As a Christian, I believe that every person has an incommensurate worth. All human life is sacred and we are called to be good stewards of creation. I believe that there is something immortal and lasting about every person conceived into this world. We are all God’s children and God loves you no more or less than he does me. I believe there is an order and a divine plan. It is important to play our part as instruments of divine providence.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Commandments, Creation, Discipleship, Faith, God, Morality, Philosophy, Pro-Life, Providence, Reflection, Religion, Right to Life, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 6

Posted on January 13, 2015 by Father Joe

“Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.”

This is not so much a commandment as it is a quality of good character. All of us need a level of integrity in how we approach the world and behave. This does not tell us what to do. Rather, it is a premeditation and a later resolve to carry through and accept what comes. I was surprised to see this one on the list because it is the edict that atheists and secularists so often seek to escape.

Notice what is left unsaid.

1. How does one judge the consequences?

2. How far can one go to change the consequences?

3. Should the weight of the consequences upon the agent and others be equally measured?

4. Do others have a right to weigh in upon the consequences of acts that one proposes to perform?

5. As long as one will accept responsibility for acts, what determines that these acts are good and moral?

6. What exactly does it mean to take responsibility… obedience, dissent, not getting caught?

The Church urges this dictum when it comes to sexual activity between men and women. Couples should first be married and they should be mindful that this activity is how lovers become mothers and fathers. Sexual intercourse is geared to fecundity and fertility. Of course, the critic objects to this necessary connection. He would prefer a reflection so that an escape clause or out might be found. Thus, as an example, sexual acts might be manipulated or the faculty of generation destroyed through contraception. Instead of avoiding such acts that are inherently life-giving, the act is distorted into one where bonding and pleasure are now the only ends. If the contraception should fail, the traditional believer would say then the child should be welcomed. However, here the so-called commandment is violated or expanded again to include abortion. In truth, responsibility for acts is avoided.

As a Catholic, a difficulty I see is the ingredient of atheism itself. What if Christians should be right about the last things: death, judgment, heaven and hell? Then there are obviously consequences for our actions that the non-believer has failed to evaluate. The tragedy here is that there will be an eternity to suffer remorse.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Commandments, Conscience, Contraception, Discipleship, Faith, God, Morality, Philosophy, Pro-Life | 1 Comment »

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 4

Posted on January 6, 2015 by Father Joe

“Every person has the right to control over their body.”

This modern commandment is directly connected to the issue of legalized abortion. Atheists deny the existence of a soul. Thus it is easy for many of them to discount the embryonic as human with rights. Despite a human developmental trajectory, the unborn (at least at early stages) is judged as no more than tissue or at most, only a human being “in potency.” This commandment would have more credibility if there were respect for the body and/or the separate but dependent integrity of the unborn child. Frequently language games will be employed to avoid the truth about the child’s humanity in the womb. When it comes to issues like partial birth infanticide an irrationality takes hold. It is argued that it would be cruel to adopt a child out to strangers; and yet, with adoption they would become a loving family. The blindness of selfishness is heinous. If there be a physical defect, a strained comeback might point to a dubious or difficult quality of life. Frequently there is an appeal to overall viability although medical science is saving the lives of increasing premature babies. Certain ethicists have noted that young children (up to maybe three years of age) are not really viable without constant adult intervention. They just do not know how to care for themselves. That is why a few rogues are proposing “post-birth abortion.” Beyond the logical inconsistencies, the pro-abortion position gives rights to some and strips them entirely from other persons. The definition of a baby becomes shallow: “it is only a baby if you want it.”

Life issues are often interconnected. A consequence of this maxim would also be assisted suicide. If the person has absolute dominion over the body then he or she can terminate the life of that body whenever he or she deems to do so. With God extracted from the equation, he no longer has sovereignty and out goes the fifth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” Turning to lesser matters, it would also permit all sorts of bizarre tattoos and piercings. Indeed, one could turn his or her body into a for-profit advertising banner if so desired. This is really a monstrous commandment and points out that separated from God; we really do not know how to be good. Since we are our bodies, this permissive commandment would also open the door to all sorts of distortions in sexual behavior, way beyond the evils of artificial contraception and fornication. The Christian would argue that personal control of the body is not absolute. We must respect that all life belongs to God and the plan of nature by which we are made. We must also respect others, including the little people who start out in the womb.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Contraception, Discipleship, Faith, Fornication, Homosexuality, Morality, Pro-Life, Religion, Right to Life, Science, Sin | Leave a comment »

Letter to the Editor: By Their Fruits You Will Know Them…

Posted on November 20, 2014 by Father Joe

Letter to the Editor
May 15, 1992

I perceive that some of you may be discouraged or disheartened by the so-called march for pro-choice or abortion that occurred here in Washington a few weeks ago. Numbers do not make right, even if correctly reported. Take a look at what the media gave little or no coverage to:

At one point in the march a lesbian, self-proclaimed, asked the marchers how many of you are lesbians? The video tape shows nearly half of the marchers in view raised their hands. Their leader has gone on record as saying that if she ever by chance became pregnant and found her “child” male, she would kill it because she hates all males.

In the crowd of marchers there were those who accused the Church of murdering Pope John Paul I. Others portrayed Pope John Paul II in drag. This is a reminder of the ones who in St. Patrick’s Cathedral spit in the face of Cardinal O’Connor at Communion time and desecrated the Blessed Sacrament.

Others would prohibit the husband being told by the wife that she intended to have an abortion thereby denigrating the role of fatherhood and reducing him to a stud. So much for family life!

There were the strange people, by most standards, the Jane Fondas and the Mayor Kellys and the Jesse Jacksons chose to march with. As Ms. Tyler said so descriptively they were the sexual masochists, transvestites and trans-sexuals, etc. and the cry was today join together as one.

Then there was our shadow senator who said on one occasion “what happens to the mind of a person and to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without pain of conscience? What kind of person – what kind of society will we have twenty years hence if life can be taken so casually?” Jesse Jackson 1977. Today he could answer that question for he is pro-abortion and marched with the crowd at the April 5 rally.

We were all shocked at the beating of a man captured on film at Los Angeles. In that same city thousands of unborn children are mutilated every day in the pay-as-you-go abortion clinics. The politicians looking for votes wring their hands at the Los Angeles beating but vote yes for the million-plus killed in our “society” each year.

The CRISIS Magazine, May 1992, page 10, reports that The Washington Post (mirabile dictu) polled 881 marchers and compared the answers to the views of the rest of the nation. The differences were as large as 80% to 5%. They were rich, young, white, childless, left-wing, non-Catholics, Northeastern activists.

The pro-abortion crowd in the game of numbers had 500,000 marching in April in the world’s capital. The Question is the one posed by the new abortion convert, Jesse Jackson, what kind of people are doing the marching and who were supporting them by their presence and their words. By their fruits you will know them.

Filed under: Awalt Papers, Homosexuality, Pro-Life | 3 Comments »

Letter to the Editor: Gag Rule

Posted on November 19, 2014 by Father Joe

September 12, 1991
The Catholic Standard

Once again the media has coined a phrase in trying to justify abortion which does not tell the whole story. “Pro-choice” has been canonized without the object of the choice which is to choose to kill human life. Now it is the “gag rule” referring to the right of a doctor to advocate and counsel abortion and refer a patient to a clinic for that purpose.

But there is such a thing as self-gagging. Does a doctor explain “the procedure” for abortion much like a surgeon perhaps to a bypass patient? Would the doctor allow the patient to hear the child’s heartbeat and explain that we are going to stop that, you realize?

Would a doctor in explaining that no pain would be felt by the woman also explain the pain that the unborn child will experience? Would the doctor explain that the unborn is human, a fact which no scientist can disprove? Would the doctor explain that many women down through the years have severe psychological problems, if not guilt (cf. Rebecca Society)?

Would the doctor refer the woman to a clinic in which he has no self-interest, or instead to one where he has invested money earned by his terminating of human life? Would he refer her to a competitor’s clinic to ensure no conflict of interest? Would he suggest that in such a drastic procedure the baby always dies and sometimes the woman, despite modern technology?

What doctor would struggle to save a woman’s life when he has no regard for the baby’s life? Would the doctor suggest a second opinion and thus split his fee?

Where is the law that says the doctor has to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? When is the media going to insist that the doctor not gag himself but instead educate his patient about what is actually and exactly going on in an abortion?

There is “gagging” and there is “gagging.” Let’s tell the whole truth in counseling patients.

Msgr. William J. Awalt
Pastor, St. Ann Parish
Washington

Filed under: Awalt Papers, Pro-Life | Leave a comment »

Letters to the Editor on Abortion

Posted on November 18, 2014 by Father Joe

Msgr. William Awalt loved to write letters to the various editors of newspapers. When he found that they limited him to one every three months or so, he would get around the restrictions by having others apply their names to his words. The first letter here he wrote under his own name. The second was under his brother’s name, Deacon James Awalt.

April 6, 1995
Letter to the Editor

In seeking reactions to Pope John Paul II’s new encyclical, “The Gospel of Life,” CBS interviewed students at Catholic University for an hour and a half hoping to find some criticism and rejection of the Holy Father’s teaching. In speaking to one student, she said she agreed with the Holy Father’s teaching especially on contraception and abortion. She was asked why? She said, “Because I am a biology major, in addition to my belief, and I have seen what has happened to women’s bodies because of the rejection of these teachings.” The interviewer changed subjects immediately. Nothing of this hour and a half dialogue appeared on television. Who got the attention? It was the ever-present Frances Kissling, who represents nobody by her own admission on national TV, but who can always be relied on to criticize the Church and Pope John Paul. So the media continues to show its bias and censorship. As long as they hate us, we are doing okay.

Rev. Msgr. William J. Awalt

Date Unknown
Title: Abortion

There is no consistency in the principles of the pro-abortion advocates vis-à-vis government and the pregnant mother. When the legality of abortion was argued in the last session of the legislature in Annapolis, the pro-abortion advocates argued that abortion was a private matter between the mother and her physician. Their cry was “Government should stay out of the womb.” They won the fight for legal abortion.

This year the abortion advocates want to add an amendment to the welfare bill now pending in the legislature that would provide state funding for abortions for the poor. Now it seems they want government to enter the womb with funding.

No longer is the decision an individual affair of the mother and her physician, but the taxpayer is to be forced to defray the expenses of the mother’s choice. Thus, I, who believe that the termination of a pregnancy on demand is immoral and unethical, am forced into the decision without any choice.

My appeal to all lawmakers is “be consistent” and “be fair.” If an individual chooses the elective surgery, let that person or their sponsors find the funds outside the public treasury.

James Awalt
Millersville

Filed under: Awalt Papers, Pro-Life | Leave a comment »

Letter to the Editor: National Stud Day

Posted on November 17, 2014 by Father Joe

When in concurrence, good parishioners like Bernie Saffell would put their names to Msgr. William Awalt’s letters so that they might be published. Here is one that was sent to The Catholic Standard. Bernie was a dear friend to us all. As I recall, he died back in the 1990’s due to an infection from a heart procedure with angioplasty.

Letter to the Editor of the Catholic Standard

With tongue in cheek, but I do believe with a little bit of logic, it might be better to change Father’s Day to National Stud Day in view of recent developments in National life.

Listen to people as they gather around a crib of a newborn child and say he has his father’s eyes, or nose, etc. Now “lawmakers” who fine and/or imprison those who don’t support “their” child tell us a father doesn’t even have to be told when his child is tortured and destroyed through abortion. Paid butchers now for fear of malpractice suits have to make sure they destroy and mutilate a child in the womb during an abortion lest by accident the child live and they could be sued. This they do to the father’s child without even having to tell him. Talk about withholding information “until the next of kin is notified.” One doesn’t have to be a lawyer or a genius to know that abortion is the killing of human life.

One of our justices doesn’t believe in overturning prior Supreme Court decisions if proven incorrect. We’d still have slavery if that were the case. Someone else says you can kill a child if conception came about through incest or rape. Why does the tragedy of that conception allow an innocent child to be killed for his father’s sin? What did the baby do wrong? Does one tragedy justify another? Someone else is running around with semen looking for a place to implant it. Doesn’t that make a “father” a stud? We are responsible for all our choices. Why are we not responsible for “pro-choice” deciding to kill a child? Certainly we are free to choose but morally responsible for the results of that choice.

Radical feminists claim that their body is their own, but so is the baby’. The child is housed by the mother, but not her body. Potential fathers are killed in the womb by a sex-choice decision that causes them to be aborted.

When are good and wonderful fathers going to rise up and say enough is enough? You can’t do this to my daughter and son. I am not a stud but a father, and trying to be an image of our heavenly Father who loves all life, especially that made in His image and likeness.

Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. The road to madness in abortion is paved with illogic, sentiment run amuck. The Constitutional fathers are spinning in their graves as they are accused of being the authors of a constitution that supposedly allows the killing of unborn babies.

Bernard Saffell

Washington, DC

Filed under: Awalt Papers, Fornication, Pro-Life | Leave a comment »

Counseling for Catholic Marriages

Posted on October 17, 2014 by Father Joe

Catholics with marital problems should have readily available avenues within the Church for professional counseling in the hopes of salvaging their marriages.

More can be done to prepare priests for this kind of work but I think there is also a need for full-time professionals with training in psychology and intervention-counseling. These counselors should be well-versed with the Catholic faith. If they are not on the same page with us about human sexuality and the value of marriage, then they can escalate a problem instead of being part of the solution.

When red lights appear in the Pre-Cana preparation, referrals can be made before marriages in the Church.
When problems develop within marriages, referrals can be made to facilitate healing or reconciliation.
When questions arise about sexual identity and remaining in good standing with the Church, referrals might be made to assist people in coping and to counteract bias from non-Catholic sources.

While there are good independent counselors who charge fees, I would also recommend that there be professionals hired directly by the Church. Their salaries might be shared between parishes as within deaneries. They would work closely with pastors, while preserving confidentiality, to either prevent bad marriages or to salvage troubled ones. Such staffing should be viewed as serious as religious education directors, office managers and bookkeepers. In any case, a public list of counselors vetted by the Archdiocese should be readily available to pastors and the people they serve.

Catholic marriage counseling is necessarily different from that which is offered by those who do not share our understanding of marriage or our views about human sexuality. These counselors need to discern how a troubled Catholic marriage might be fixed. The truths of faith are integrated into our appreciation of psychology. The goal is to have couples living a daily vocation where there is both joy and sacrificial love. Marriage is viewed as a covenant and as a permanent union. Too many quickly jump to divorce as the answer. Catholics should see that as an option generally taken off the table.

Instead of urging an immediate divorce, a separation might be promoted so as to further the conversation or to prevent verbal and/or physical abuse. If a marriage has terminal problems and cannot be salvaged, then the counselor might suggest an annulment. That is where the pastor and/or the officials on a Church Tribunal would enter the picture. However, this is inherently always a sad or tragic situation. It means that avenues to save a marriage have failed.

Right now we have noble efforts like Retrouvaille but there is a pressing need for something more clinical.

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Catholic, Celibacy, Commandments, Contraception, Discipleship, Divorce, Faith, Family, Fornication, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, Personal, Pro-Life, Reflection, Religion, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

A Few Thoughts about the Synod Relatio & Debates

Posted on October 14, 2014 by Father Joe

My head is spinning about some of the things that are being seriously argued at the Vatican’s Synod on the Family. I am already concerned that a Commission was established to look at streamlining the process for annulments even prior to the start of the Synod. It seems to me that if such were a concern then the bishops would then request the Holy See to do so. Will the documents which will be formulated reflect the majority view and Catholic tradition or will there be attempts to steal the show for the minority progressives?

What is it about this new Synod document that has critics saying it signals a revolutionary shift in favor of same-sex couples? It is acknowledged that this “relatio” urges clergy to make “fraternal space” for homosexuals. But what does it say? We read:

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a further space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of proving that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

Are we reading the same document? All I see are questions. Hopefully they are not rhetorical. Do we eject gay brothers and sisters from our churches? No we do not. Can we invite them forward for Holy Communion? Yes, provided that they maintain chaste and celibate lives. Can we affirm or value their sexual orientation? No, we cannot do so. Such would devalue the true meaning of marriage and human sexuality. We cannot move away from the assessment of disorientation or that same-sex carnality is mortal sin.

As a so-called case-in-point of past intolerance, the news contrasted this development with the story of Barb Webb who was fired from a Catholic school when she and her partner announced her pregnancy. Similarly, her partner, Kristen Moore was asked to resign from her post as a music director at a Catholic parish. The secular media glossed entirely over the moral issues that extend beyond same sex unions, like the freezing of embryos, donated semen and IVF technologies. All these elements are reckoned as moral evils and sinful.

This relatio is being interpreted precisely as Cardinal Kasper would suggest. The doctrinal truth is eclipsed, if it remains, for the sake of a pastoral provision or slackening of discipline. The same reasoning he uses for divorced and remarried couples is being applied to active homosexuals. I find this reckoning very disturbing. Discipline can be distinguished from doctrine but discipline is always at the service of doctrine. There are doctrinal elements that cannot be ignored. It is contradictory to say that gay acts are sinful and then to value, in any way, homosexuality. It is contradictory to say that marriage is a lifelong institution and that divorce is a sin, while inviting couples to receive Holy Communion who are living in adultery. The truths of Scripture are clear and we must always be at the service of the truth on every level: doctrinally, canonically and pastorally.

The document recognizes that same-sex couples live lives where they render “mutual aid to the point of sacrifice [which] constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.” Critics are saying that this is a crack in the door that may one day lead to full acceptance. I would say that this is not the case. The statement is one that reflects the immediate horizontal human condition but says nothing about the vertical supernatural dimension. It is a mere statement of fact that these couples support each other in their day-to-day lives. However, this does not mean that they are in right standing before God. Mortal sin is still mortal sin. I suspect that there are many “nice and pleasant” people who make good neighbors and yet will suffer damnation and hellfire. We are not saved by simply being nice but by being faithful and obedient to God. The Church can relax certain disciplines but she cannot change divine positive law. My fear is that tolerant language might enable or encourage more sinners to remain within their sins. The Church must be a place for saving truth and grace. She should never be an enabler for sinful lifestyles or blasphemous acts like receiving the Eucharist while ill-disposed or in mortal sin. This document does NOT acknowledge the “holiness” of such couples as was suggested in the Huffington Post article by Antonia Blumberg (1/13/14). It simply asks if we might tolerate with passivity and silence the situation of people living in sin.

I cannot buy this application of any “law of graduality.” No matter how slow might be the movement to holiness; the Church should never compromise on the fullness of truth. Confessors can exhibit great understanding and compassion for married couples who use artificial contraception, with the hope that they will eventually come around to the Church’s understanding of human dignity and the full value of the marital act. It is here that I can well appreciate “graduality.” However, this is not the same as cohabitating, adulterous and same-sex couples. They have no right to a shared bed. In their regard, where there is neither contrition nor amendment of life, absolution must be withheld. Similarly, while they should attend weekly Sunday Mass, they should abstain from taking Holy Communion. The priest will not usually embarrass people in public but he fails his sacerdotal charge if he does not challenge such couples in private.

This law or better yet, theory of graduality was very much the rationale for the “open table” of Anglicanism. It was hoped that this welcoming to receive the Eucharist would draw others into greater unity. Contrastingly, the “closed table” of Catholicism sees Holy Communion as an expression of an ecclesial unity that is already realized. This is representative of the ancient tradition wherein heretics and grievous sinners were denied the sacrament or even excommunicated. The Church’s censure of interdict would also illustrate this posture. One had to be properly disposed and graced to receive the sacrament. Anything less was judged as blasphemous and scandalous. One should not pretend there is a union that is not truly there. This resonates with the current debate about divorced and remarried couples as well as with active homosexuals. We cannot allow a false compassion to tolerate normalization for the sake of public acceptance while the pastoral accommodation is deceptive to the doctrinal truth and the spiritual state of souls before God. We can move away from using pejorative biblical terms like “sodomites” and “adulterers,” but the underlying reality will remain the same. Does this really serve the summons to repent and believe?

If we change the discipline for those in serious sin and the intrinsically disordered, would we not logically have to open up Holy Communion to others (particularly Christians) who might be in ignorance of the full ecclesial reality but who live moral lives? It is a real can of worms and I would prefer to leave it closed. But that is my opinion.

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Commandments, Confession, Conscience, Contraception, Discipleship, Divorce, Eucharist, Faith, Family, Fornication, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, News, Pope Francis, Pro-Life, Religion, Sacraments, Salvation, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 6 Comments »

40 Days for Life

Posted on September 24, 2014 by Father Joe

From September 24 through November 2, you’re invited to join other Christians for 40 Days for Life – 40 days of prayer and fasting for an end to abortion.

You’re also invited to stand and peacefully pray during a 40-day vigil in the public right-of-way outside Metropolitan Family Planning, 5915 Greenbelt Road, College Park, MD.

If you’d like more information – and especially if you’d like to volunteer to pray, please contact: Tom Trunk at 240-593-6982 or 40daysforlifeMD@gmail.com.

Visit the website at http://www.40daysforlife.com/collegepark.

Father Joseph Jenkins, our Council Chaplain and the Pastor of Holy Family Parish was scheduled to lead the Rosary in front of the Greenbelt Abortion Clinic on the first day of the prayer vigils, Wednesday, September 24 at 1:00 PM. He was accompanied by Jim Murry, PGK, PFN. He was joined by other Council Knights, Jimmy Cardano, DGK and Roger Doucet, Fraternal Benefits Advisor. Various others had come from other councils and parishes. People came and left, although numbers swelled into the 20’s at one point. A young woman came over and told us that the happiest day of her life was when she had an abortion and that she did not regret it. We did not debate her but simply let her know that we were praying for the unborn children, including hers, and for the conversion of the hearts and minds of mothers and fathers to the Gospel of Life. It was clear to see that she came over to incite some negative action. Instead, we extended love and prayers. After the Rosary was offered, Father Jenkins offered an extemporaneous prayer, invoking the grace and aid of the Holy Spirit upon the prayer champions for life and for this woman in particular. That she might come to repentance and instead of dispairing when her eyes are opened, that she might find hope in Christ’s mercy. A few people beeped their car horns at us. In the past we have had people shout and gesture obscenities. Our reaction is always non-violence. We hate no one and do not want to hurt anyone.

Every year when we do this prayer of protest there are women who will also tell us that we made them rethink what they were doing and turn around. Babies are saved. Father Jenkins also made mention of SPIRITUAL ADOPTION and how our prayers are an expression that all children are miracles and wanted. We are Christians proclaiming the Gospel of Life. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Christianity. We witness to life. The Council Knights and their families were urged to come throughout the month and to offer their prayers and rosaries, both outside the clinic and wherever else they find themselves. We should pray unceasingly against the scourge in our society. Father Jenkins was very defiant and exclaimed, “When the child in the womb is not safe, none of us are safe!”