i wrote most, not all, of the following, some while in prison, for an online newsletter

sample writing
...
Sat, May 31, 2008 2:00:42 PM

ABORTION IS MURDER

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone message –484-651-0212, 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 36
John Dunkle, Editor

May 2, '08
Dear Mr. Dunkle, Glory to Jesus, the Incarnate Logos!
(almost random musings)

Years ago, when I was twenty something, I was walking a busy downtown D.C. street with my
uncle. A mixture of curiosity & compassion drew me towards a ragged woman having an
intense debate. But there was nobody standing in the spot her eyes focused upon, nobody I
could see. My uncle made a nervous comment. He wanted us to avoid this woman. Was she
dangerous? Was she likely to mistake me for the invisible person she was arguing with?
Would she attack me with an invisible knife? My uncle didn't want to take any chances.
A few years later, I attended a party in Dallas. It was still early when I fell into conversation
with a smartly groomed low-level office manager. Nothing peculiar about him at all, there was
nothing odd. We'd gone out onto the porch for a smoke. There were only two of us. I thought
there were only two of us. Then he turned away for a moment to acknowledge that someone
else had spoken to him. I discerned no one other than the two of us within earshot, and asked
who the third party was. My new acquaintance smiled and gave a reassuring, friendly laugh.
He apologized. He sometimes forgot, after a drink or two, that other people don't see them.
Them? What "them"?
As far back as he could remember, he'd had friends nobody else could see or hear. What did
they look like? Well..., they were just like anyone else, almost. (Without saying so, I refused to
be reassured.)
Do genuine schizophrenics show no other sign of mental instability? I was concerned, even a
little afraid that this man was too normal in every other way to be having a psychotic episode.
Insanity is less fearsome than what might be going on here. I had not attended Mass in
months, but in my mind I began to recite all the prayers I'd memorized as a child in catechism
class. I called upon Jesus, his Holy Name, his Precious Blood, and upon the extended family of
saints and angels he'd given me in his blood.
My new friend began to look confused. Had I been outwardly rude in some way? I'd been so
careful to hide any appearance of "religiosity." I attempted to carry on a light exchange of
words with him while at the same time speaking interiorly to heaven. But something was
different now.
"They're gone! They don't just leave like that"; then he looked at me, "Have you been talking
to the enemy?"
Still not fully appreciating what had just occurred (or preferring not to think about it), I left
the porch to rejoin the rest of the party.
It has been a while since my release from prison. A few months ago, I saw someone on the
street in a busy area of the city. He was speaking and gesturing, but he was facing the empty
brick of a building. There was nobody there that I could see. The man was clean cut and
wearing an expensive suit. Then I noticed the thing in his ear. Aha, a Bluetooth device! I'm
still getting used to the new cell phone technology. My little phone can take pictures, black &
white or in color. My three favorite ringbones are the 1812 OVERTURE, a Reggae version of
BY THE RIVERS OF BABYLON, and the Looney Tunes cartoon theme. I take for granted now
my ability to send text messages and images to other cell phones or direct to email addresses.
But my cell phone isn't one of those fancy ones that can send and receive signals down in the
subway, underground.
Someone coming up close on my heels says loudly, "Well, hello! It's been a long time! How
have you been?"
I turn quickly, seeking recognition in the face belonging to this friendly voice, and startle the
woman. Her Bluetooth is a stylish hybrid of hearing aid and jewelry made of electric blue
plastic and chrome, a tiny sports car without wheels. She immediately discards me to the
outermost periphery of her awareness and continues on without a noticeable break in the
energetic pace of her high heels. I'll bet her fancy cell phone receives signals wonderfully well
in the underworld. ( beware the new sin of tech envy) Confidence in The Pierced Heart of
Jesus, Jim Mitchell

P.S. See attached picture I took of myself at a pay phone. It has proven effective at keeping
little furry critters and some birds out of vegetable gardens.

May 2, '08
Dear J.D., You printed comments by Prof. Rice who seems to think that when someone, like
Paul Hill, draws the rational conclusion from scripture and traditional Christian ethics and
acts upon those well-thought out conclusions, that he is making himself his own pope.
Sorry, but as a Catholic I was not aware we were all supposed to have hotlines to Rome so we
might check with the proper authorities to see if it was permissable to replace corn with peas
on the dinner menu. I certainly would not expect Paul Hill,a non-Catholic, to consult Rome on
the knot he should use for his tie.
All reasonable objections by opponents to Paul Hill’s act of compassion for preborn children
have been addressed beyond what (far as I can tell) any orthodox theologian could expect. It is
the queasy contingent within the ranks of the prolife/antiabortion movement who wish to
infect us all with the nausea of indecision. I have yet to see an honest, prolonged attempt to
square off with someone of the caliber of Rev. Michael Bray. When the queasy confront their
fears that they may actually be wrong, and face their responsibility to intellectual honesty,
then there might be real progress. Prof. Rice casts stones, and feebly. As to Popes, none have
forbidden what Paul Hill did, only counseled against it. Jim Mitchell

If you’re wondering why I rejoice at hearing again from Jim Mitchell: It is the queasy
contingent within the ranks of the prolife/antiabortion movement who wish to infect us all
with the nausea of indecision

May, '08
I found Jim Mitchell, praise God.

Dear Dr. O'Connor, This laptop is an amazing device. When I go to the library later, I'll
email this msg. to you on their wifi. I can download the Douai (or any public domain text),
convert it to a pdf file, open the pdf with ADOBE, and listen to the text read in an
understandable electronic voice! If you know any visually impaired persons, they might
appreciate knowing about this and
receiving a little assistance so their computer can read them their daily email and news.
(though there may be better ways to accomplish the same thing, and organizations that
advocate for the disabled are likely to have better info)
I'm composing this while also watching a dvd about post 9/11 hatred of Jews with reference to
the spurious Protocols of Zion; all on the same computer screen. Somtimes I use one free
program to download in flv format a youtube music
video, converting it with another bit of freeware into a Windows Media Player compatible
video (or just audio) format.
Having tremendous difficulty with a number of issues. Assuming the passing of a human life
amendment to the constitution, would it be equal justice to have no penalties (jail?) for a
woman who aborts her child with deliberation & knowledge that it is a human individual
being killed while a man is likely to spend years in prison for killing in a rare uncharacteristic
moment of provoked rage? Which one is more likely to kill again if free to do so? Would this
sort of inequity arise from a genuine attitude of mercy towards women, or rather a sexist
attitude that treats women as perpetual infants who cannot be held truly responsible for their
acts? Is there an instinctive basis for this; perhaps men have a built-in desire to be the
protectors of women. (After sexual molesters of children, those imprisoned for violent and/or
sexual crimes against women are generally considered lowest-of-the-low where I was
incarcerated. The killer-for-hire I took meals or walked the track with while comparing Zen &
Christian forms of meditation was, by comparison, respected. His acts of violence were viewed
more as part of his former job description, less as a sign of some perverse and disgusting inner
compulsion.)
Which individuals or factions best represent an "Islam" Muhammed would have approved of?
Would it be possible to live in peace with that form of "orthodox" Islam without
compromising authentic Christian Humanism? Why are there so many homeless
schizophrenics in DC when they are eligible for housing vouchers, disability income, and food
stamps? The laws do not allow them to be forcefully rounded up and processed into a more
reasonable living situation, yet they are often unable to access public aid on their own because
of their distorted apprehensions of reality.
Why is "global warming" becoming an excuse for proposed massive increases in government
intrusion into our personal consumption practices when there are technologically
sophisticated options which, though quite expensive, offer
real solutions without so great a loss in personal freedoms (one proposal, seriously
considered, involves a ring of satellites with solar reflectors that unfold in space to cut back
just enough on sunlight reaching our planet so that we may stay cool enough while awaiting
the development of real alternatives to fossil fuels -- fusion rather than fission nuclear
reactors, deep-drilling for universally available geothermal heat to drive steam turbines,
generators that harness the power of the tides, etc. )
So my life is packed with things that hold my interest. In one folder on this laptop, I am
arranging Douai psalms into the breviary order which was standard from the time of St. Pius
X to Vatican II. And I cheat when playing solitaire on a program in this PC. . .
It would be great to have news on how Jim Kopp is doing.
Thanks to Don Spitz for passing my contact info along.
Confidence in the Divine Mercy! Jim Mitchell
________________________________________________

Everyone has to have a pope, a visible, authoritative interpreter of faith and morals. Either
we have one or we have billions. Ultimately, Hill was his own pope. But what makes his
judgment any more tenable than the judgments of the Southern Baptist Convention and
others who have criticized his acts? --Charles Rice, Professor of Law

Interesting comment from a “Catholic.” The implication is that if Paul Hill had a Pope, he
would not have been quite so forceful in stopping the torturer from ending the lives of
twenty-six young people. That’s the modernist line today – if you’re Catholic, you may not
use force to fight the baby killers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
_________________________________________________

Dear John Dunkle . . . Is anyone presently doing the following, and what do you think of
this approach? Station persons with video cameras outside the entrances of abortion clinics
during business hours. The cameras would automatically be sending what they "see" direct to
another location. Put the footage on websites. It might even be possible to upload the vids free
to a no-charge mini-site on youtube until enough people complain and youtube shuts it down.
I don't know, but it might work as a google picasa site. I know photo albums can be made
public on picasa. (I have a youtube mini-site under the name "extragarlicnow.")
Once the word got out that this was occurring, many pregnant women considering abortion
would avoid abortion clinics altogether. Some footage could be made from within parked cars,
and the awareness that they could be caught on video when no camerapersons are obviously
visible would discourage many from seeking abortion.
Once there is general awareness that prolifers are using this tactic, sometimes even using
cameraphones, then the regular use of cellphones or even nonfunctioning objects that just
look like videocameras outside abortion clinics (along with continued use of functioning
cameraphones and videocameras rotating between different killing centers) could greatly add
to the effectiveness of this tactic.
A possible tactic would be to have a succession of persons with
cameraphones strolling casually past the entrances to abortuaries while appearing to be
having phone conversations. Then, as soon as someone likely seeking an abortion approaches
the entrance, the person with the cellphone makes a show of getting footage; thus, all persons
visibly using cellphones in the vicinity of any killing center would become unwitting allies in
this effort to raise awareness that any abortion clinic could be under surveillance at any time.
Confidence in the Divine Mercy, Jim Mitchell
Jim’s mind clicks away on the outside too!
________________________________________________

April,2006
Dear Mr. Dunkle & P.O.C.'s, All glory to the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost – one YHWH!
A few months ago, while listening to a pop music station, I listened closely for the first time to
the lyric of a well-known Bob Marley song. I grabbed a piece of paper and a pen to write, as
best as I could remember, some of the words that grabbed me:

Sheriff John Brown always hated me –

for what, I do not know.
Every time I planted the seed, he said,
"Kill it before it grow . . ."
I shot the sheriff, but I
did not kill the deputy.

I don't listen to a lot of pop tunes these days, and I'm sure I may be reading into this lyric
something quite different than the songwriter intended. What do you think?
I often misread or misunderstand what the intention really is behind someone's words. In a
novel or short story, the writer helps the reader to see the hidden agendas of the characters,
sometimes better than the characters themselves who may be driven by pre-conscious
motivations. Real life is more difficult, people are more complicated.
Many of you have probably received, as I have, a letter from a PhD candidate asking help to
understand our "motivations." Can anyone so well-educated really be this ingenuous? Where
is the big mystery? I oppose the murders of helpless children who have the misfortune of
residing within the wombs of mothers who are willing to pay hired killers to destroy them.
"Abortion" is not a mere abstraction, a political view to be voted against. "Innocent human
life" is not just a generalized idea that needs to be better explained, a free-floating immaterial
reality less tangible than the wind.
The true horror of the intentional, scheduled killings of real individual human beings this
week, this day is too often ignored. The ideas of "Abortion" and "Innocent Human Life" do
matter, but only in reference to the attitudes which (whether knowingly, or from ignorance)
allow real, particular acts of aborticide of real human individuals. Manifest actions are no less
important than abstract, generalized concepts and attitudes.
Somewhere in the indefinite boundaries between passive resistance and forceful direct action
we find the wonderful ministry of pro-life "sidewalk counseling."
Soon (March 16 this year) I’ll be released to the N. Virginia area near D.C. I cannot say, or
even really guess, whether during my two-year probation (or afterwards) I'll be involved in
anything more than prayer supporting the cause. (Neither do I completely rule out any
morally good anti-abortion activities.)
If the advice of fellow activists (and also prisoners in general) means anything, then I can
expect to be harassed by the abortion-enforcers ("civil authorities") whenever an anti-abortion
intervention occurs in the D.C. and outlying areas.
It is possible that I may choose neither to admit nor deny my involvement without regard to
whether I have, in fact, been involved. For one thing, it has been explained to me often that it
almost never helps a suspect (or "person of interest") to say anything beyond name, address,
etc. to "law enforcement" when questioned. And even if I were not responsible for the action
being investigated, I might not mind taking the heat for the more courageous activist who
would, thereby, be more deserving of freedom than myself.
Even with training, I doubt I'd be much of a sidewalk counselor. If any of you have seen the
film "Dog Day Afternoon" or follow cop shows on TV, then you've seen Hollywood's idea of the
police "Hostage Negotiator" who dialogues via megaphone with the desperate criminal who
has taken hostages. A sidewalk counselor has the unenviable job of being a "hostage
negotiator" without the S.W.A.T. backup.
Pray for me that I'll receive and recognize the Lord's guidance.
Since this may be my last contribution to skyp while locked up, I want to thank you for all the
good you've done and are being persecuted for. Thanks also for your prayers.
Confidence in the Blood of Jesus, Jim Mitchell

Dear Mr. Dunkle & POC's, Glory to Jesus, Lord of Life!

May He bless us all, especially anyone who could be offended by what I write. I'd just sent a
note off to you that I'd expected to be my last contribution as a POC, but Erich Schmitt's letter
to Shelly (March '06 skyp) has me all riled up.
Why can't I just let it go? Mr. Schmitt parrots the same old song, and I'm drawn in by some
compulsion to counter it with my version of the old refrain. It isn't as if the obvious needs to
be pointed out, but old habits die hard. Bad habits are the hardest to kill. So please forgive
me . . . here I go ------
I'm perfectly willing to admit Mr. Schmitt may not be intentionally evil, only the purveyor of
crass irrationalities that make the murder of womb children a little easier. He seems capable
enough of reason (or something very like it) so I wonder if some trauma could have caused
him a very specific, though insurmountable psychological or neurological defect that
interferes with his capacity to think clearly on the topic of abortion, but otherwise completely
normal.
Dr. Oliver Saks reveals how a few of these disorders can narrowly inhibit one small part of any
mental faculty, leaving most of the rest of the mind perfectly all right. My favorite titles of his
are "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" and "An Anthropologist on Mars." The rare
examples he gives are usually severe enough to touch on all aspects of a person's life.
Milder forms could be a lot more common. So I do not doubt that he writes ". . . with as much
care and honesty as possible" (emphasis mine); I just don't relish the prospect of co-operating
in a project sponsored by someone, however well-intentioned and talented, whose
possibilities are so very limited where they are most needed for the type of project he proposes
– a book involving the topic of aborticide.
There are more than enough books, just too few readers who bother to read what they ought.
There are pro-bort ("pro choice") and pro-life ("anti-bort") books, and books that attempt to
find a moderate center between the other two kinds. These last are written for target
readerships who misapply Aristotle's teaching that most virtues are found in the middle of two
contrary extremes. Valuable as that rule of thumb may be, it is easy enough to put any kind of
folderol forward as the moderate center when one first chooses the boundary extremes used to
plot the center. Truth is usually distorted in any number of contrary directions, but Truth is its
own defense and contrary falsehoods are only known as such by contrast with Truth, known
directly and explicit or intuitively and implicit.
Since this isn't a private, two-person exchange, I have little use for polite equivocations like
substituting "pro-choice" for the lucidly accurate term "pro-abortion." Mr. Schmitt's feelings
are worthy of respect, but must take a back seat to a more important concern – the aborticidal
massacre of innocent children.
If "pro-choice" has any useful meaning, then "choice" must be a central value. Why then do
"pro-choicers" not apply it broadly to the killing of any innocent person, whether or not he or
she resides in a womb. Why not support the "freedom-to-choose" patricide, fratricide, or any
other forms of homicide other than
feticide? The reason hardly needs stating, and I'm sorry to drag you back to self-evident
basics. Here goes – "Choice" is only being used as a cover to serve the more central value of
aborticide; otherwise the value of "freedom of choice" would apply similarly to other forms of
homicide as well.
This isn't as much about religious "beliefs" as about the knowable facts of human biology and
reproduction. Atheists don't believe that any of us, born or preborn, have spiritual souls. Do
we allow them to kill any individual at will? Of course not! Are we, by attempting to thwart the
atheist's hypothetical blood-lust, interfering with his or her freedom or (or from) religion?
Hey, the bible says "Thou shalt not steal"; so maybe theft should be legal, a matter of "choice"
since it's forbidden in writings held sacred by a major world religion.
Mr. Schmitt could be a little peeved at you right now, Mr. Dunkle. If you'd explained all this to
him earlier, he might have been spared the embarrassment you expose him to by showing us
his letter. You should be kinder to your friend.
I apologize for one oversight in a previous letter. If Mr. Schmitt were more familiar with the
Gospels, he'd appreciate that hyperbolic speech is a Christian tradition old as Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John. Jesus says that if any eye or hand leads us into sin, we ought to remove it
from our bodies; but there are precious few one-eyed, one handed Christians (even among the
most devout). Prisoners also say things like, "See that inmate over there? He's working for the
FBI!," which only means, "Be careful what you say around him. I have reason to believe he
can't be trusted."
We know well enough that the FBI pays no special attention to pro-life activists. Why would
they need to? We don't generally have the kind of cagey criminal instincts that keep more
gifted
Page 4

"lawbreakers" from getting caught. We give ourselves away too easily.

Come March 16, my release date, I don't know what my address will be. Maybe I can stay in
touch online from a library. For now, you ought to strike me from your mailing list.
The Lord's best to everyone! (even Mr. Schmitt if he can stand it . . .)
Confidence in the Blood of Jesus! Jim Mitchell

Dear Mr. Dunkle and Mr. Schmitt,

Glory to the All-holy, Almighty, Eternal Trinity.
Am I paranoid or what? After a quick "Hail Mary" to temper any uncharitable impulse, I still
have to admit that I can no more understand buddying-up with someone either so delusional
or demonically evil that he advocates a "right" to kill children than I could feel at ease in
Jeffrey Dahmer's company after his conviction for his cannibalistic serial murders.
A character in a film shows up at a Halloween party in ordinary street clothes. She's asked
where her costume is. Her reply: "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac; they look just
like everybody else.
Even apart from any religious belief, the humanity and individuality of the preborn child is so
clear a fact, so axiomatic, that I have an almost insurmountable difficulty accepting that
persons who otherwise appear fairly sane, who are usually even-handed in their dealings with
others, who are capable of healthy and affectionate relationships with friends, and who can
show some sign of compassion for victims of injustice can assist a troubled woman to become
accessory to the murder of her own child. Huh?!!
So I can't guess what Mr. Schmitt's motives are. I want to believe the best of others, but I've
learned (since being in prison) that it is easy to be taken in by likeable sociopaths who either
lack a conscience or whose conscience has been permanently warped by abuse they've
suffered as children (or the kind of "good public schools" that ruined most of my generation)
that I've learned that only Sacred Scriptures and the ages-old wisdom of Holy Church can
guide me. I cannot trust my own judgment here.
So maybe Mr. Schmitt isn't a "rat," working with the F.B.I. psychologists and sociologists
who'd like to figure out a way to prevent or "cure" whatever psychopathology they imagine
afflicts Pro-life Christian Activists; but after my own past experience with Feds, prisoners
(some child abusers in the lot), and pro-borts (who I generally classify with child-abusers and
serial-killers) I'd advise everyone to be highly cautious.
Anything is possible. Mr. Schmitt may be a really nice guy who is just very very wrong on one
issue, abortion. Maybe his masculine competitiveness cannot accept that he's already lost the
debate, and he
just needs a little prayer and time. Suddenly the scales could fall from his eyes.
But James 4:4 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 must have been written to warn us about something.
What then could it be if not a warning against any collaborative efforts with the opposition on
a central concern of Christians: how the revived "cult of Moloch" is playing a key role in
dismantling whatever remains of Christian civilization by attacking the most fundamental of
human rights (upon which all other human rights depend) which is the right of every innocent
human individual – without regard to size, number of cells, location, degree of intelligence or
capacity to feel pain, how "wanted" he or she is, or condition and degree of dependability –
not to have his or her life directly and intentionally attacked by anyone else. (On this, there
can be no compromise whatsoever!)
Without agreement on fundamentals, axioms, first principles and rules of logic, there can be
no fruitful dialogue. If someone proposes any other kind of dialogue, then their motives must
be questioned.
You cannot "talk sense" with a committed pro-bort. You are dealing with someone who is
either lacking intellectual integrity, delusional, out-right insane, or under the powerful
influence of some evil outside of himself. This is why pro-life politics (aside from a miracle or
series of miracles) is doomed to failure. Political dialog must be able to assume a rational,
good faith opponent. But we know that pro-borts are almost always incapable of good faith
dialog and debate. As soon as anyone among them begins to rely on reason as a guide, he
falters in his support for child slaughter and is replaced by "… seven other spirits more wicked
than itself." (Mt, 12:45)
So what do we have left? Direct life-saving action of confrontation (from sidewalk counseling
on up) to doing spiritual combat with prayer, fasting, and other forms of penance.
All for Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, ever-virgin Mother of God! (The truths
most despised by Satan, like Catholic Marian doctrines, are often those most effective in
routing him) Jim Mitchell

Dear Dr. Dunkle,

All glory to Jesus!
Thank you for your most recent newsletter. Father Berard and Peter Knight always have
interesting things to say, and I like to read how Ms. Shannon is doing. Thanks also to Jim
Kopp!
My opportunity to use the equivocally ambiguous "Alford" plea came as a result of prayer by
others and myself. If the judge granted that option (my lawyer explained that it's up to
whoever sits on the bench), then it would be my sign that the Lord wasn't asking me to go to
trial.
Though not usually so abandoned to the Divine Will, I was (at that time) fully confident that
the Lord would grant me whatever courage would be necessary to plead "not guilty" at trial
and accept whatever came. I was as fearful of disobedience to the Divine Will as of any trial or
sentence. (May it please the Lord to make me that concerned always, and in all things, with
pleasing Him.) But it was a special grace for that time only, I guess. It's rare that I've ever
(before or since) had that degree of confidence in the Divine Will, or was as willing to submit.
Also, I don't fault anyone for taking a "guilty" plea. It isn't as if it means much any longer to
those who have experienced how our court system really works. The whole business is a farce!
I've been to plays where someone pays the role of Hamlet or Lady Macbeth. In character, the
actors say all sorts of things that aren't, in fact, true. Their statements only have meaning in
the context of the story. We don't accuse them of dishonesty.
Well, our legal system has long ceased to be about real justice. It is no more than a game, a
fiction, a bit of theatre for the masses So I fault no one for how he chooses to play his role
(except for him who prosecutes, judges, and punishes the innocent).
May the Lord's blessings be with you and all readers and supporters of skyp!
Confidence in the Precious Blood of Jesus, Jim Mitchell
P.S. Do you have a copy of Bl. John Henry Newman's poem, "Lead, Kindly Light"? I'd like to
see it in skyp.
F.Y.I. – One of my favorite essays is Swift's "A Modest Proposal." Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a
Who is my favorite pro-life children's book.
P.P.S. Can anyone recommend any R. Catholic communities of monks or friars? My
preference would be for the following type of community: traditional Latin-rite (non-
schismatic) or Eastern-rite, semi-eremitical, in agreement with Fr. Reginald Garrison-
Lagrange's orthodox Christology, good library including Fathers of the Church, accepts late
vocations without college, strong devotion to the reserve sacrament (Eucharist in tabernacle,
for example). Knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas' and St. Maximus Confessor's teaching a big
plus!

Here's the poem James asks me to print:

The Pillar of the Cloud

Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom.

Lead Thou me on!
The night is dark, and I am far from home—
Lead Thou me on!
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene, -- one step enough for me.

I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou

Shouldst lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path; but now
Lead Thou me on!
I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.
Page 2

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still

Will lead me on,
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone;
And with the morn those angel faces smile
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.

Hello, Mr. Dunkle, I wrote to Mr. Mitchell a few months ago, and I happened to ask him what
he thinks God thinks when God sees a Christian kill another Christian in war. Mr. Mitchell
was kind enough to write the following detailed response, and he wrote at the end, "If you see
some value in this letter, then maybe forward it to our good friend, Mr. Dunkle . . ." So I'm
forwarding it to you. God's blessing to you, David

Dear David, Glory to the All-Holy, Almighty, Eternal Trinity . . . . two well thought out books
on Christian pacifist and justifiable war traditions can be found at www.light-n-life.com. The
authors/titles: The Pacifist Option: The moral Argument Against War in Eastern Orthodox
Theology, by Father Alexander Webster and The Virtue of War: Reclaiming the Classic
Christian Tradition of East and West, by Father Alexander Webster and Dr. Darrell Cole
Though from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, the development of both pacifist and just war
teaching in Catholic and Protestant thought is examined. The footnoted authors and titles
look to be promising sources for greater understanding of both ancient and modern attitudes
among Christians generally. The first thousand years of Christendom is the common heritage
of Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and classical Protestants.
The first book is a reworking of the author's doctoral thesis. It is almost two books in itself, the
first being the author's method and awareness of his own limitations, setting the tone for the
second half, which is more directly on pacifism, and anticipating the volume, The Virtue of
War.
A good general introduction to the Catholic approach to the philosophy of ethics which may be
used together with Divine Revelation for developing a Christian Moral Theology: Right and
Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, by Fr. Austin Fagothey, SJ (www.tanbooks.com)
It has chapters on the state, government, civil law, social order, war, and peace.
Sorry, I realize you may be way out ahead of me on these issues. My concern is not so much
with full scale war, but with the ethics of using potentially deadly force to protect naturally
innocent human individuals whose lives are threatened by unjust aggressors.
The whole pacifist vs. use of force question is a difficult one for me. The mind is continually
challenged with one paradox after another, and the emotions engage on both sides. It can
wear you out. My limited reading has at least helped me to feel less responsible for answering
all the ins and outs of the problem since far greater minds have trouble coming up with clear,
once and for all solutions.
I've basically concluded, for now, that absolutist pacifism cannot be a universally binding
moral norm, but one may have a real personal calling or vocation to manifest, as a sign of
hope to others, the perfect peace of the Kingdom of God after the resurrection and Last
Judgment of all human beings. As a parallel, I offer the case of celibate monks and nuns who
still must respect the good of Christian marriage though there will be no marriage in heaven
as we know it on earth. The analogy is imperfect since I don't wish to draw too much
comparison between the creative good of marriage and the destructive use of force in defense
of human lives.
The idea of doing serious bodily harm to anyone, whether or not he is a faithful Christian, is a
painful thought. No less painful is the realization that naturally innocent people die because I
am not usually willing to use force in their defense. Does it matter whether an unjust
aggressor is a Christian or not? Only for him since he would then have less excuse for bad
conduct.
It is hard to be completely aware of one's own motivations. If I could be sure I would not be
prone to immoderate anger, and that I could fight well without hatred, I might choose to be a
soldier. If I knew that it was no sign of cowardice or an evasion of responsibility, then I could
accept an absolute pacifist vocation.
From biographies I've learned that some people have felt strongly drawn, from childhood, to
monastic life or married life. These people often find it hard to see the value of callings other
than their own.
Pro-life activists may be called to use pacifist or forceful tactics, and it will often be difficult for
pacifists to appreciate our position; but I hope and pray we will find ways to support one
another even if we cannot completely agree.
Thanks for the prayers and letters.
If you see some value in this letter, then maybe forward it to our good friend, Mr. Dunkle, who
should feel free to play editor (without a PC I'm not sure I can write a meaningful sentence).
Confidence in the Divine Mercy, James
P.S. If word gets to Eric, be sure he knows how good Linda Wolfe has been to many of us over
the years

Several observations in James' letter rattled me slightly (slight is about my limit). Every week
since July, 1970, I have abandoned young people who were about to be tortured to death. Over
the years it has become easier to abandon them and easier, as well, to save them: these days
the killer walks right by me a few feet from the door to the chamber. It would be a snap for me
to break her kneecap with a short bat. (Maybe not so snapish now that I'm writing this --
maybe that's why I am writing it, but see James: "It is hard to be completely aware of one's
own motivations.") At any rate if I broke her kneecap, about twelve babies would escape the
torture and the decapitation. Oh, I know, I know all the reasons not to do it, the most
frequently offered being, "You know those mothers will just kill their babies the next day
anyway." That may be, but in that case they would not be my responsibility because I'd be in
jail or the hospital. I repeat these reasons to myself and print them in skyp here whenever I
can find them. But they are rationalizations. The truth is that I can save those lives, and I do
not. The bat or hammer, of course, is not the only effective instrument. There is the rifle, the
shotgun, the knife, acid, gasoline, even the fist if I were younger and stronger. But the bat
would suit me best. Will I do it? Of course not. When I face my Maker, He will
understand . . . . won't He?
_______________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Dunkle,

Have you read it in the newspaper or seen the human interest story yet? Pro-borts and Pro-
Lifers are coming together, seeking mutually agreeable solutions to the social problems that
trouble us all.
We have homeless people, hungry people, people in pain, people in prisons, sad people,
unwanted people. What to do? What to do?
Well, we can all agree that this world is full of cruelty, unhappiness, and hardship. Christian
pro-lifers seek answers in the grace and example of Jesus Christ who has taken all our sin and
pain upon Himself, died for us, and has risen again in glory. But the process of applying his
grace and following his example is still problematic. Sometimes it just seems too difficult.
Sometimes we just feel like giving up. I know I'm sometimes tempted to look for an easier, no-
fuss, no-muss answer.
Those pro-borts over there at the other table look so caring, so compassionate. And, gosh, they
seem so smart too! Kill 'em now before they suffer one more moment of hunger and misery,
illness and alienation!!
Better yet, why wait until they're already in trouble? Sneak up on them while they're sleeping
in the womb and get them good BEFORE they know how awful their poor pathetic little lives
are likely to be later on.
All that matters is that everyone is happy, pleasant, and always knows he or she is wanted.
We won't execute anyone for murder. That would be unthinkable. But we'll chop 'em up into
hash for being miserable, or because they might be miserable sometime tomorrow, next year,
maybe when they hit puberty – whatever!

Your friend, "Anonymous from Montgomery Twp., N.J." (Hereafter referred to as

"ANFROMOT'") seems to agree. ANFROMOT writes "My main concern is just what happens
to unwanted babies, regardless of the situation which brought about this decision to abort?"
(Jn '05 skyp)
ANFROMOT makes clear that the problem (as ANFROMOT sees it) is what might happen to a
child as a result of being unwanted. OH, that is . . anything that might happen except the
decision to abort the child, to kill it. Better to kill it than let it be unwanted, right? I mean, all
our happiness depends on how other people feel about us. I guess all the "self-esteem"
workbooks, group encounter sessions, and electro-shock didn't help ANFROMOT much; and
ANFROMOT compassionately desires to spare other people the misery of finding themselves
in AFROMOT's shoes.
And you, Dr. Dunkle, what about you? ANFROMOT wants to know. ANFROMOT needs to
know. What are you going to do to help all the unwanted children (if ANFROMOT's buddies
decide not to mercifully kill 'em all off)?
Well, Dr. Dunkle, you can tell ANFROMOT that you might add your name to the list of people
waiting to adopt "unwanted" newborns, and your number might come up before the child's
too old to push you around in your wheelchair and can still see well enough to set the dials on
your iron lung.
Maybe you can find an "unwanted" orphan while you're still ambulatory if you travel to
Romania or China. There's even a long waiting list for couples who want to adopt infants with
Down's syndrome.
But it doesn't really matter if you have parents and siblings who want and love you, does it? It
didn't help Terri Schiavo any, did it? There was still one person, her husband, who didn't want
her anymore.
So, ANFROMOT, you think death by aborticide is better than being unwanted. What I want to
know is this – what are you going to do with all the dead children? Will you take a good, hard
look at all their mangled little bodies? Will you mourn for them? Will you bury them beneath
your rose garden and well-manicured lawn and pray for the peaceful repose of their souls?
Or, ANFROMOT, would that make you too, too sad? Watch out, ANFROMOT! Here come the
happiness police!

All hope in the

superabundant love
and mercy flowing
from the pierced
side of our
crucified Lord Jesus Jim Mitchell

Dear Mr. Dunkle,

It's going to be a beautiful Sunday. Lots of sun, and the air is still cool.
Shortly after my arrest, I agreed with my court-appointed lawyer that it wouldn't hurt me any
to go along with the prosecutor's request that I have a psychiatric examination. So I went
down to FCI Butner in N. Carolina for the examination and observation for about (I think) six
weeks.
While there, I took a standard multiple-choice test. I had decided that I also wanted to know,
for my own benefit, whether or not I was a complete nut-case. . , and what they called
whatever mental illness I might have. But I was pretty sure I was sane, and very sure that I
wanted others to understand my action, the arson of a child-killing center, as a sane and
legitimate way to save lives.
Though a prosecutor might expect that a defendant might want to seem crazier than he was to
get a lighter charge or sentence, I had a very different perspective. Far from pushing for a
lighter charge or sentence, I was certain that I would rather go to trial than plead "guilty,"
even though I might spend twice as much (or more) time locked up as a result. I had no
problem admitting responsibility for what I'd done, but an unqualified guilty plea is more
than admission of responsibility; I would be saying I was responsible for an immoral or
unethical action, and I would be agreeing with them that the laws that protected the killing
center were valid.
In other words I would have to bear "false witness" in a formal public manner on two of the
most serious concerns of this generation, the slaughter of millions of children in their
mothers' wombs, and the right of any human being to interfere with that slaughter.
The sort of "false witness" would be something more than a "white lie" to spare someone's
feelings. It seemed to be precisely and literally what that commandment forbade: perjury.
So I did not want anyone to believe I was insane. "Eccentric," "strange," that would be O.K.
There could be many different ways to be sane. I have trouble believing that a sane person
would enter a boxing ring and risk permanent mental disability for any amount of money at
all. But boxers aren't necessarily crazy. It's just some different kind of "sanity" that is beyond
my understanding, that's all.
So I took this multiple choice test. I wasn't going to kid myself that I was 101% perfectly
normal, either. I don't even want to be normal. When I think of what most people mean by
"normal," I think myself that it would be one of the cruelest insults to start a rumor that so-
and-so was "perfectly normal." Why! If I were that person, I'd come right over and punch
myself in the mouth for thinking trash like that . . . What nerve . . .calling someone "normal" . .
. the people you have to put up with nowadays . . . it's enough to make you want to do
something like . . . like . . . like maybe setting fire to one of those places, you know, . . . one of
those child-killing places.
Anyways, I took this multiple choice test. For days after that I twiddled my thumbs, I paced
back and forth, I walked in circles, I imagined the worst.
Maybe I really was crazy. Maybe I was really very sane but they would just lie and say I was
crazy. But why would they do that? Just because I said out loud what nearly everybody knows,
that abortion is murder? How can anyone who has had even junior high school biology not
know that abortion is murder. OK, maybe sometimes it's more like manslaughter, but it's still
homicide. And for the physician who aborts children; that well-educated, calculating killer
knows, beyond doubt, that abortion is the direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life.
After a number of days, I came before a team of mental health staff. They'd looked over my
test answers. There was a problem. I chose too many of the answers a crazy person would
choose. Most crazy people would have chosen to give only a few crazy answers. That makes
sense. The test was designed to catch lots of different kinds of crazy people. But almost
nobody was afflicted with every kind of craziness. So most, almost all, crazy people would only
give some crazy answers.
But I had given way too many crazy answers, and for too many kinds of insanity.
Oh-oh.
What happens now?
Well, best as I can guess, they decided to ignore the test results. Maybe they didn't discount
them completely, but they didn't put me in a padded thorazine straightjacket right away.
They told me I was kinda in two categories. It looked like a ratings system. They said it meant
I fit the pattern of a person with "borderline personality disorder." As a backup, they also
picked "schizotypal personality disorder."
I flunked the crazy test so awfully that I must not be completely crazy after all. Maybe a crazy
person has certain limitations. You can only be so insane; any more than that and it takes a
sane person to be that insane. A crazy person doesn't have that much going on upstairs. . . or,
rather, he's got too much going on upstairs, but it's all in tight little circles and scribbling. He's
all in complicated knots and never gets anywhere. Somehow I'd gotten too far out-of-bounds
to be crazy anymore.
But to be on the safe side, they had to diagnose something. You can have a "personality
disorder" and still be sane. I'm one of those special people with two "personality disorders."
Can I wear the patch or do I have to take the shots?
Confidence in the Divine Mercy. Jim Mitchell

PS By the way, I took an "Alford Plea." It's a qualified guilty plea that admits guilt for the sake
of the judicial process, but still leaves open the question of actual guilt.
I'm no hero. I received a sentence of 10 years. That is, in real years, about 9. For that length of
time I get free clothing, medical, room & board for a little under one hour of public service.
Where else can a 3-time college dropout get such a great deal!
Maybe I really have discovered a new category of sanity.

PPS The enclosed words of Mother Theresa may explain why we have to do what we can to
save the life of a child scheduled to die today, whatever the long-term prospects may be for
saving many more through a change in our laws or Constitution.

Here are Mother Theresa's words that Jim mentions:

I never look at the masses as my responsibility.

I look at the individual. I can love only one person at a time. I can feed only one person at a
time.
Just one, one, one.
You get closer to Christ by coming closer to each other. As Jesus said, "Whatever you do to the
least of my brethren, you do to me."
Page 3

So you begin . . . . I begin.

I picked up one person –
Maybe if I didn't pick up that one person I wouldn't have picked up 42,000.
The whole work is only a drop in the ocean. But if I didn't put the drop in, the ocean would be
one drop less.
Same thing for you
Same thing in your family
Same thing in the church where you go
Just begin . . . one, one, one.

________________________________________________
Two letters from James Mitchell arrived on October 20. I opened the thinner one first and in
it was an essay by Fr. Michael Orsi who teaches at the Ave Maria law school. Fr. Orsi had
recently begun to witness at a local Planned Parenthood, joining some students from the
school.
Father begins by criticizing two things he has observed since starting his new career as an
active prolifer: One of the protesters carries a camera and an enlarged picture of a baby that
had been tortured to death, and several prolifers display similar pictures outside the church
where a pro-abortion "Catholic" politician attends Mass. Then Father tells us what should
have been done instead.
First, though, he tells us that they're doing more harm than good, that they might chase some
mothers away with that camera but they'll just go somewhere else, that they're turning off
good Catholic people, etc. "What then should we use as a guide to appropriate behavior for
those identifying themselves as Christian protestors?" Father asks. And he answers, "I think
two role models stand out: Pope John Paul II and Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. Both of them
have always kept their message positive."
Much of the essay is highlighted and I'm starting to wonder about James. Doesn't he realize
that this same essay surfaces about every five years and that the writer is usually some
neophyte who opens his mouth as soon as he opens his eyes? Obviously Father is new to the
movement, doesn't realize his article had been written many times in the past thirty years, and
has never read Betsy McDonald's "James Kopp: In Defense of Others," and similar
magnificent and logical prolife responses to that way of thinking. And, judging by the grey
hair, Father's been around for a while before he makes his first visit to a slaughterhouse. What
we've gone through, he's going through, and making the same mistakes we've made. I'm sorry,
but the best things Fr. Orsi and his ilk – and that's every priest, with a few exceptions like Fr.
John Murphy and Fr. Aram Berard, S.J. -- can do are say Mass and hear confession. As my
close friend, another New Jersey priest, tells me, "It's a laymen's issue."
I'm writing this in my head as I'm reading the essay, and then I open James's second, thicker,
letter -- the lights flash and the bells clang, another wonderful piece of prolife writing, ten
times better than anything I could have done. It's a copy of a letter that James sent to Fr.
Kenneth Baker, S.J., editor of the review Orsi's article appears in. Here it is.

Dear Father Baker, Though I have immense admiration for Fr. Michael Orsi's clear dedication
to the rights of unborn children, I would like to comment on his article which appeared in the
June, 2004, Homiletic & Pastoral Review. Frankly "Food for thought for Catholic Protesters"
gave me a bad case if indigestion.
He comments on the uncouth assertiveness of some pro-life protesters and seems to reject
altogether any use of force in defense of preborn children scheduled for execution.
This is especially troubling to someone like myself who has conflicting sympathies. I ask
Mother Teresa and St. Francis of Assisi for prayers but I also hope in the intercession of St.
Bernard of Clairvaux (Doctor of the Church and preacher of the Crusades) and St. Joan of Arc.
Mother Teresa asks us to discover the image of our crucified Lord in the distressing guise of
the poor and I see His image in those hugely oversized photograph posters of aborted,
dismembered children; so imagine my reaction when the article mentions an "unabashedly
pro-life" Catholic woman who "voiced her concern" about those posters being displayed in
front of her church as people file in to attend Mass. How will people find spiritual uplift in the
liturgy after viewing these revolting images? What about the children (the living ones exposed
to those posters, not the dead ones portrayed)?
We display often realistic images of martyrs undergoing bloody trials for love of God along
with the central image of our crucified Lord in churches and homes, and we object to graphic
posters reminding us of how our Lord is being crucified repeatedly today, sometimes within
blocks of our homes, churches, and places of business?
Did the rich man also wonder whether the sight of the poor leper Lazarus just outside his
front gates might disenchant his visitors and scare the children?
Maybe this woman is right. Maybe those ugly signs don't belong out on the street. The rich
man should have brought Lazarus inside, cleaned his sores, and fed him a good meal. How
else should he have treated someone who deserved to rest in Abraham's bosom?
No, I'm now quite sure of it. Those gruesome signs don't belong out on the street at all. They
belong in the sanctuary, surrounded by wonderfully garish and excruciatingly horrific statues
of the martyrs; but in a special position of honor – closest to the pierced bosom of our most
unlovely, infinitely lovable crucified Jesus. A piety not enlivened by this tableau should be
viewed with suspicion.

Page 2

The Presbyterian minister, Paul Hill, was executed for an extreme response to an extreme and
ongoing destruction of innocent lives. His action is dismissed as irrational, yet where is the
rational debate? The man killed by Paul Hill was a self-advertised, habitual, professional
destroyer of innocent children unrestrained by the civil authorities. Until an abortionist
clearly renounces his extreme moral crimes, he is a continually proximate threat to human
life.
A Lutheran minister, Michael Bray, has gone to great lengths to address moral objections to
Paul Hill's action. He makes many excellent and rational points that Catholics merely ignore.
But please consider this. If the same number of 5-year-old children were killed in the public
square day after day for thirty long years, then we might be less willing to embrace an
extremist pacifism that sometimes appears more Buddhist than Catholic.
The Incarnation is the font of every virtue. Fr. Michael Orsi writes of the "gentleness of God's
grace" and the "splendor of the truth." Do we rely on this world's understanding of gentleness
and truth, or can we see the splendor of the truth in Jesus' severe denouncing of the Pharisees
and appreciate his gentleness as he drives the money changers from the temple precincts? His
charity and mercy shine as brightly on those occasions as it does when he heals the blind and
lame and feeds the thousands. Confidence in the Devine Mercy, J Mitchell

"Extremist pacifism"! I love it. That's where the "Catholic Church" in America is today. From
top to bottom it has embraced the extremist pacifism of the Amish in response to the legal
killing of the young.
__________________________________________________