Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Winter 2025 PDF
    • WINTER 2025 HTML
    • THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW HTML COLLECTION PAGE
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2025
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Your Cart: Shipping is ALWAYS Free!

Pastoral Reflections

0 Comment

Put Out into the Deep!

David Poecking
Dobbs v. Jackson, Pro-Life Movement, protecting the unborn, roe v. wade
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“Put out into the deep: duc in altum!” Barely a generation ago, Saint John Paul II repeatedly invoked this Gospel imperative to prepare the worldwide Church for the third millennium. Now, suddenly, these words take on new meaning for prolifers, who are facing a new era in our efforts to protect the unborn in law and in fact. No matter how Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is decided, the pro-life movement will require a fresh mode of progress.

Jurisprudential experts have already written widely on the U.S. Supreme Court case, and the Human Life Review has attended to it diligently, so I won’t belabor the details here. For my purposes, it suffices to know that because of changes in the makeup of the Court, this is the first case in decades to give prolifers hope that there can be real change in the abortion regime established by Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

With hopes thus raised, one possibility is that prolifers will be disappointed, that is, that the Court will uphold Roe v. Wade and throw out Mississippi’s post-15-week abortion ban. After nearly fifty years of protest against the absurd arguments undergirding Roe, another defeat might tempt many of our colleagues to despair or bitterness. Some might choose to walk away from the pro-life movement, perhaps turning toward an Amish-style spirituality that seeks a measure of justice and peace within its own community, while consigning large portions of public life to Hell. Others, God forbid, might be tempted to radicalize their politics and turn to violence. Prolifers would need to find new ways to support each other in sustaining hopeful and constructive engagement on the national level.

Another possibility is that the abortion regime Roe instituted will be overturned. This would be a great victory for the pro-life movement. But its jurisprudential effect would be to return the question of legalized abortion to the several states—how would the pro-life movement respond?

In states where the horror of abortion is widely recognized, it might become tempting to promote regulation banning abortion but with little or no provision for mothers and their children. We can be sure that the very worst cases would be repeatedly broadcast by the mass media so as to impede the success of the pro-life movement in marginal states, where the population will not so clearly support legal protections for the unborn. And in those marginal states, of course, prolifers will resume the same political struggles as in the past decades, but now largely on the state level.

Meanwhile, in aggressively pro-abortion states, we could expect a vigorous counterreaction, including efforts to facilitate or even reward abortions sought by refugees from other states. Prolifers who reside in such states would face the challenge of mitigating the damage done by their own state’s policies, as well as challenges occasioned by actions taken by other states. Suppose, hypothetically, that with the abolition of Roe, a pro-life state chose to enact legislation perceived to be punitive to women who abort. How would this play in California, where such news would be caricatured and less punishing pro-life efforts elsewhere ignored?

Yet a third possibility is that the Supreme Court will issue a mixed decision, for instance, allowing the Mississippi law to stand while not overturning Roe. This would likely elicit the complications of the first two possibilities while also causing additional confusion and uncertainty.

No matter the outcome at the Supreme Court, prolifers will need to manifest renewed integrity, a deeper sensitivity to the implications of their words and actions in other states, and perhaps a more cautious discipline within their own movement.

Thus the new applicability of the words of Saint John Paul:

Now we must look ahead, we must “put out into the deep,” trusting in Christ’s words: Duc in altum! What we have done this year cannot justify a sense of complacency, and still less should it lead us to relax our commitment. On the contrary, the experiences we have had should inspire in us new energy, and impel us to invest in concrete initiatives the enthusiasm which we have felt. Jesus himself warns us: “No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk 9:62).

(Novo millennio ineunte, January 6, 2001)

If our goal is truly the protection of the unborn in law and in fact, then let us resolve always to act accordingly. In defeat or in setback, let us not despair. In victory, let us not gloat or otherwise empower our opponents to reinforce abortion elsewhere. In all things, let us be mindful how the example of our words and our work may bear fruit in establishing and sustaining a civil order where the unborn are welcome.

375 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
David Poecking

Fr. David Poecking is the regional vicar of the South Vicariate of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.

More by Father Poecking

 

 

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR
The-Human-Life-Foundation
DONATE TODAY!

Recent Posts

Washington Post Tries and Fails to Debunk Study on Mifepristone Dangers

30 May 2025

Israeli Supreme Court Minimizes Biological Parenthood

22 May 2025

Pro-life Groups Can’t be Forced to Accommodate Abortions, Federal Judge Rules

14 May 2025

CURRENT ISSUE

Alexandra DeSanctis Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott Bernadette Patel Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke D. Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jacqueline O’Hara Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Marvin Olasky Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Matt Lamb Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Rev. W. Ross Blackburn Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro Wesley J. Smith William Murchison

Shop 7 Weeks Coffee--the Pro-Life Coffee Company!
Support 7 Weeks Coffee AND the Human Life Foundation!
  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • Annual Human Life Foundation Dinner

Follow Us On Twitter

Follow @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.