Really? - revisited

Don't have much time today - have a meeting tonight, preparations this afternoon, and still have some wooden toy guns to finish sanding for the craft fair on Saturday, (see this post)

Received a comment on my comments here on last month's Crisis cover story ("If Abortion Were Outlawed Tomorrow... Would We Be Ready - The Law of Unintended Consequences - A Cautionary Look at Overturning Roe v. Wade", is by Elizabeth Thecla Mauro.) The anonymous commentor said:

"I read that article. I did not get that conclusion from it. It seemed to me she was exploring possible ramifications that could come from overturning Roe v Wade without first following through on President Bush's idea that hearts and minds must be changed."

I recall the President's 'hearts and minds' comments - but I took them to mean 'that when more hearts and minds were changed (through education for example) then the country would have the will to outlaw abortion - and that will does not presently exist.'

The Crisis article author however views the 'hearts and minds' comment as if the President believes we could outlaw abortion now, but the consequences of that move would be very disruptive to society (and in the author's view, particularly to Catholics) and thus it should be put off until more hearts and minds are changed. (Note the author doesn't believe the abolition of abortion should be post-poned - she is saying Bush believes it and warning us of the consequences if it done immediately.)

The former case is very likely true. While popular opinion is swaying to the pro-life position, still the majority of the populace doesn't care.

The latter case is incredulous to me. I don't see how outlawing abortion is going to tramatize the country especially Catholics. And re-reading the article, the author certainly seems to believe it will. She says a major schism in the Catholic Church in America is a likely consequence of outlawing abortion immediately. Yet I don't see how - and the author doesn't make the case.

I quote from the article below:

"Furthermore, we must anticipate what might come from overturning a law before hearts have been made ready. For the consequences aren't merely societal. Indeed, such a move could actually lead to a full-blown schism within our own Church.

"Does that sound improbable? Think again. Most of us already know Catholics who refer to themselves as "American Catholics", careful to distinguish themselves from that intolerant/sexist/racist Church in Rome. There are entire parishes tha simmer and pop with palapable restlessness, relfexively embracing the tenants of deconstruction over orthodoxy and calling for the acceptance of abortion, divorce, and women's ordination the way some saints have called upon the Holy Trinity. Anngered by the overturning of Roe (and Romes vigorous support of it), those parishes coul conceivably try to effect a formal separation."

Okay, why would these parishes break into schism and not just join together and secede from the union - because Rome's influence does not generally effect constitutional amendments in America. Thus, again, I don't see how all the anger is directed at Rome, if abortion is outlawed - not to this extent. I don't think the abortion lobby among Catholics in America is so strong.

Now it may be a different story if contraception were outlawed by a Catholic majority - either on the Supreme Courst or in Congress. Contraception is considered by many Christians (and unfortunately many Catholics) as the best thing since sliced bread. But even here, the anger would be taken out in the voting booth and demonstrations - not in schism from the Church who has no political power in the US - at least at the moment.

Just my thoughts - from the small holding in Bethune ...

Oremus pro invicem!