All I know of the Bishop of Palencia in northern Spain, Jose Ignacio Munilla, is what I've raked from Google, which isn't much. But he's mentioned because I was struck by an answer he gives in an interview to a question about the Spanish Church's failure to prevent the Spanish government's further liberalisation of the country's abortion laws. He says:
"The Church's aim [meta] is not to stop laws from being passed, but to awaken and enlighten consciences".
And he adds:
"I think the Church is writing one of the most beautiful pages of its history in expending its reputation and its energy in defending the weakest and most innocent of all human lives -- those who have been conceived but not yet born."
The response to Bishop Munilla -- who is, incidentally, very active in pro-life endeavours in his diocese -- is obvious: surely one of the most important and effective means of awakening consciences is public opposition to anti-life legislation?
But his point must still be considered. The aim -- meta is more than "aim": "purpose", or "raison d'etre" might translate better -- of the Church's pro-life stance is to awaken consciences. If the bishop is right, and I think he is, then this must be the criterion of the success of a pro-life stance, not whether it succeeds in changing this or that law.
Here in the UK, I've watched -- and been part of -- many attempts to reform laws on abortion and embryo experimentation; seen the phenomenal energy and money and time spent by campaigners on the issue, without success; and wondered what would happen if those same resources were put into a campaign for changing minds and hearts.
It has been done before.
William Wilberforce, the great Christian anti-slave trade campaigner, eventually realised that there were too many vested interests and closed minds in Parliament to effect change there. In 1771, following yet another failure of his slave trade abolition bill, he told his followers: “It is on the general impression and feeling of the nation that we must now rely, rather than on the political conscience of the House of Commons”.
From then on, it was a campaign to shake consciences -- through stories, town-hall meetings, petitions, boycotts, testimonies (above all, the testimonies). Gradually, over the next decades, people awoke to the humanity of the slaves; and as the value of that humanity rose in people's eyes, what was once considered a regrettable but acceptable sacrifice for the sake of other benefits – prosperity, trade, and so on – became an insuperable moral obstacle.
The change in the law followed the awakening of consciences.
It can happen again.
If the bishops will not expel them, then a novel approach would be for the Church body, the lay people to do the dirty work of fraternal correction. Better to have a swift kick in the pants than to cuddle these pols into everlasting fire.
I prefer to measure our success in terms of a culture that increasingly rejects abortion. At one time abortion was considered an honorable and social good. It was treated as a good and heroic choice in our movies and television and among the youth. This has slowly but surely changed, thanks be to God. Polls - especially polls of younger men and women bear this out. Those who favor abortion rights also see this change and in fact are publicly fearful of an important shift in public opinion.
I fret over the slow pace of public opinion changing. I fear that those who oppose this change will continue to paint our cause with the broad-brush of those small few who have morphed a respect for all life into actions of hate.
But year in and year out the tide is turning because of changing hearts and minds.
No meaningful and sustainable law will be done without first a shift in hearts.
The Bishop is on the right path, perhaps the only path, to make this happen in a pluralistic society.
If such a law exists, then it is worse than the settled slavery laws in the past, do you agree? And as reasonable human persons, it is a moral imperative for us to ensure that such a travesy of justice do not persist.