AmericanPapist Comments
There's a drug out there that can completely obliterate your free will while allowing you to still act. (See CNN home page for video of the Zombie drug; or read about it here: http://www.rense.com/general38/f...al38/frug.htm.)
You can drug people by blowing it in their face, so I wonder if it's been blowing about in DC and CT???
The Onion couldn't have done a better parody of the situation than the CT story itself. "Shock and Awww!!" don't even beGIN to describe my reaction. Let's pray for the people of Connecticut - especially women who are victims of rape. Perhaps they can be strong regarding Plan B where others are not.
This is - as you say, if true - not only disturbing, but horrific. There is absolutely no doubt about this euphemistically called "pill" being abortifacient. The suggestion alone is laughable. Procuring an abortion is its only purpose.
In fact, I was appalled, when I first heard about it, that Catholic hospitals are distributing this "pill" at all. Even if there has not yet occurred an ovulation, this can still happen. There is no guarantee that the pill will effectively prevent the ovulation. And in that case, the egg might still be fertilized and an abortion occur.
That is why all, even "normal" (a perverse word to use in this context) "contraceptive pills" are in fact potentially abortifacient: Their primary effect is to prevent ovulation, but in case that fails they also prevent the nidation of the embryo and therefore potentially cause an abortion. This "unconvenient truth" was stated already in the 80s by now-Cardinal Caffarra, then president of the Pontifical Institute "John Paul II" for the study of Marriage and Family. This is why many dissident groups were very much protesting when he was raised to the cardinalate last year.
How can the science be ambiguous if the opposition admits the medical fact which prompts the objection?
That's not really a very strong argument considering that the drug companies, and 99% of potential Plan B buyers, almost certainly don't give a fig about preventing implantation. It really costs the drug manufacturer nothing to print that the drug can act as an abortifacient and saves them quite a bit of trouble (i.e., being accused of a coverup, being sued by a woman who claims, whether truly or not, to have used Plan B and then later found out to her great emotional distress that it might have prevented implantation, etc.).
What is happening to our church leaders???? They need our prayers so that they do not lose their strength and so they may hold on to their convictions! This is truly horrible.
My comments are directed mostly at the alleged claim by the CT bishop's statement that the science of Plan B is ambiguous in respect to its abortifacient properties.
The documentation which proves that Plan B has abortifacient properties obviously goes beyond the warning label on the bottle, but the fact that this effect makes it onto the actual warning label drives home the point that the medical facts are not honestly up for interpretation here.
Or do you have a link/source that would suggest Plan B doesn't have abortifacient properties? Because everything I've heard since Plan B was introduced claims that it *can* act as an abortifacient.
Anonymous: perhaps these companies and people wouldn't care "a fig" about killing innocent life, but precisely this abortifacient effect - for which it is known primarily in Europe, it is called the "abortion pill" - is why it is still - thank God! - prohibited in Germany and several other European countries. So the companies would have to gain something by alledging it is not abortifacient - namely a not insignificant "market" (shudder).
Also, I repeat: the abortifacient effect of this pill and in fact all contraceptive pills have been denounced by Church authorities for twenty years now. There is no doubt whatsoever.
Abortifacient or not, I thought one may not commit an act that is inherently evil (contraception) under any circumstances. Is that incorrect?
Clarification: I guess the difference is that this is not actually contraception, because of the circumstances. Is that correct? I'm just trying to figure out the parameters of the controversy.
My understanding is that contraceptives are not inherently wrong in cases of rape because the unitive meaning of the human sexual act is not present in cases of rape. Where there is no unitive meaning, there is no sin in contraception, (which normally destroys the intrinsic bond between the unitive and procreative dimensions of sex).
This has not been a good day for Catholics. For Knights, its especially sad to hear the news coming out of CT given that its Bishop Lori's turf. Any news on whether he signed onto the statement?
Thomas --
I'm a little confused . . . are you suggesting that use of Plan B in those cases of rape where ovulation has not yet occurred would be permissible (or, at least, defensible)?
Also, just a suggestion on the "trauma of the incident" hypotheses. Keep in mind that legally the definition of rape (probably, technically, "sexual assault") is much broader than what we normally think of as the overtly violent act . . . it can include so-called statutory rape, which in some jurisdictions could involve a male and female who are days apart in age, with the male being just over the "age of consent" and the female having willingly participated while being just under the age.
"The Church teaches that a rape victim has every right to impede/prevent conception but no right to kill a child already conceived."
Can you please provide a source for this teaching? I haven't heard this before.
" "The Church teaches that a rape victim has every right to impede/prevent conception but no right to kill a child already conceived."
Can you please provide a source for this teaching? I haven't heard this before."
x2. It isn't every day that I run into a Church teaching on contraception & abortion that I haven't heard before.
On a side note, this has me really, really, really disturbed. No court challenges could be issued? I don't like to second guess bishops-- but they couldn't have announced during the bill's debate, "WE will close every Catholic hospital in this state before we will participate in taking the life of one child." That would swing a few votes.
This is just another example of the Catholic Church's fat bureaucracy forcing it to backtrack again on so-called core issues. When will you see that the Church is an organization of people, completely divorced from any sort of divine influence or inerrancy?
As a pharmacist who left retail pharmacy rather than dispense birth control pills, and now after 8 years have returned because I have a conscience clause in place such that I do NOT dispense birth control pills nor plan b because of their abortifacient properties!
So these bishops now say the reason I put my career on the line is null?
If it is an 'emergency' , it is okay to give high doses of birth control?
Well, at the beginning of every week, we see young women coming in for 'emergency' contraception and it is not rape just the outcome of an immoral and permissive society that makes girls think they should be having sex outside of marriage and then 'just take care of' any little problem that might come up.
For the bishops to cave here is serious. We continue to not be able to trust our shepherds in a general sense and they make a mockery of those who have held fast. I am ashamed of them and most disappointed.
Maybe the conscience clauses will not be available because the secular world can point to our bishops and say that they say these activities are okay so who are we peons to refuse?
I'll find a source for this teaching and post it tomorrow. I'm not immediatly finding it but it is well established and there is a moral consensus on this issue amoung faithful moral theologians. Please check back.
Here is a well-done summary of both teaching and theological discussion on this topic.
http://www.christendom-
awake.org...aracrawford.htm
The Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs)- promulgated by the USCCB after approval by the Vatican - are the guidelines for "rape protocol" in Catholic hospitals. The determination should be made as to where in the cycle the woman is (and believe me, it is quite easy to do!)- there are also additional tests for hormonal levels. So yes, if ovulation has not occurred, and will not within 72 hours - the length of time sperm can survive [having trouble locating the reference re 72 hrs at the moment] - it is ethically permissible to inhibit ovulation and/or make the environment hostile to sperm. (The article does a fine job of articulating all of this).
The important thing to note here, of course, (especially for those who would like to challenge us Catholics on either "perceived hypocrisy" or "failure to truly care for women" - gag me on BOTH of those arguments), is that these measures are not ways of "circumventing" teaching on contraception.(As Thomas notes above, this would not be a direct application of someone "contracepting" per Humanae Vitae.) Instead this is using the faith and reason with which we are blessed to adhere to two moral principles: never committing a direct abortion and caring deeply and compassionately for those in medical need.
" "The Church teaches that a rape victim has every right to impede/prevent conception but no right to kill a child already conceived."
I'm inclined to agree with Thomas. After all, contraception is wrong because it is an attack on the family and distorts the purpose of marriage and the marital act. But rape is foreign to marriage and is not the marital act.
But anything like abortion is unequivocally against Catholic (or natural law) teaching.
As I said at our site, anyone who paid attention to the fit which the civil authorities threw when Card. O'Malley closed schools in Massachusetts would know that the Connecticut bishops could end this showdown in a week if the bishops closed the hospitals until the legislature buzzed off.
Sorry Thomas, usurped your posting promise, there ;-). Also, just for folks' information: the media likes to conflate the notion of plan B as a rape protocol, and "emergency contraception." The Church (and hospitals) make a VERY CLEAR distinction. Plan B is considered ONLY in documented rape cases. EC is requested by many women, as Magdalen points out, who just want another way to take care of their so-called problem. Plan B as "basic EC" is NOT an option for these women at Catholic hospitals.
"My understanding is that contraceptives are not inherently wrong in cases of rape because the unitive meaning of the human sexual act is not present in cases of rape. Where there is no unitive meaning, there is no sin in contraception, (which normally destroys the intrinsic bond between the unitive and procreative dimensions of sex."
I am not a moral theologian, but the logical extension of this explanation seems tenuous. You say, "where there is no unitive meaning, there is no sin in contraception." I think I understand what you are saying in the context of a rape case, but the logical extension and appliation of this premise would seem to allow for contraception in other cases where "there is no unitive meaning" (ie, prostitution, recreational sex, etc.). It would be difficult to argue that these disordered sexual acts have a "unitive meaning" as their purpose, generally speaking, is self-centered, self-gratifying, and self-serving--hardly an encounter of mutuality (except maybe in a contractual sense), much less, unity!
I would be interested in knowing the basis for your understanding of the permissability of contraception in cases which "there is no unitive meaning." Do you have some sources?
Again, I am searching for them and will link to them as I find them (or readers contribute them). Thank you.
t2irish - thanks for the link. I have no problem being "usurped" in pursuit of the truth. Please see my ammendation to the post.
Hey. . .Thanks! I think you do a great job on this blog! This is a really, really hard issue. As my husband is a pediatric ER physician at a public health institution, issues such as this one are HUGE for him as he works to serve both the medical needs of his patients and remain faithful to the Church and her teachings. My questions really are intended to get the primary sources. I'm working too. . .Thank you for any help!
I'm sorry. But this makes me really uncomfortable. I don't get how, even in the very unfortunate situation of being raped and finding oneself pregnant, the emergency contraceptive pill would ever be okay. Even as a preventative measure. Just because it exists doesn't mean the Church should approve of its use. That's heading down a very slippery slope. Why, in an emergency situation would it be okay to be closed to life, if God allows life (good) to occur out of evil? I'm not trying to be insensitive - just very perplexed and uncomfortable about this.
Anon,
Even more simply, the Church does not teach that a rape victim must be "open to life" (the very phrase is an obscenity in this context). How DARE you tell a rape victim that they are sinning by trying to avoid being victimized further?!? It is people like you that drive people out of the faith and into heresy.
I am not at all trying to be controversial - just confused. I guess I am not telling a rape victim that they are sinning by not being open to life - maybe that was the wrong phrase? I just don't see how a contraceptive pill could ever be acceptable - no matter what the circumstance. If it's wrong, it's wrong. There should be no confusion on the matter. But is it a sin for a rape victim to use contraception or not? If there was no such thing as Plan B, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The last thing I want is to drive people from the faith - please understand.
If it's wrong, it's wrong.
That's an excessively simplistic view of morality. Killing someone in self-defense may look like murder, and a starving penniless man taking a loaf of bread may look like stealing, but both are acceptable according to the Church. A married couple contracepting and a rape victim "contracepting" might appear alike, but they aren't because rape is utterly different from the marital act. It is an attack, and the sperm released are an extension of the attack. The rape victim has a right to defend herself against being compelled to conceive against her will (which would be a further victimization, even though babies are a good; likewise she would be victimized if she were forced to conceive without rape, such as if someone strapped her to a table and artificially inseminated her).
I think we need to keep in mind the distinction between (1) the "rape victim who finds herself pregnant," and (2) a rape victim who, in emergency circumstances, seeks this medication immediately after having been raped but prior to ovulation or any potential fertilization.
I take it that in case no. (1) a Catholic hospital would not offer plan B, while in case no. (2) it would be defensible.
Here's my question. If (God forbid) I get raped and turn up at a hospital in Connecticut (whether Catholic or secular), can I demand an ovulation test before deciding whether to take the pill?
Seems to me that if the patient wants the ovulation test, it's ridiculous (and flat out wrong) to make it illegal for the hospital to provide it.
Thank you for staying on top of this breaking story. IF it isn't accurate it would seem the Bishops of Conn would need to make a statement immediately given the gravity of this issue.
I hope the quotes from this "statement" are not true. But, these are strange times.
You would think the three CT dioceses would post a press release on the their sites so that the confused faithful would have somewhere to turn to see a joint statment. Perish the thought. Nothing on any of those sites as of 10:21 on 9/28/07.
I wonder how all those people who marched to the Capitol in Hartford for Catholic Advocacy Day feel now?
I'm in the Diocese of Bridgeport. Nothing about this story surprises me given the shambles we are in here.
Why did the cowards oppose the law if they're going to go along with it? This absolutely boggles the mind.
The text of the statement is now up on the Connecticut Catholic Converence website. It is pretty much as the AP reported - including this "To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act."
http://www.connecticut.nasccd.org
Thank you Thomas for breaking this story and getting the statement out "hot off the press."
Very sad that these Bishop's signed off on this seriously flawed / illogical / unscientific stance.
I don't suppose I need ask them if they'll be enforcing Canon 915 anytime soon?!
Note that the Connecticut Catholic Conference is led by a guy who said this back in April:
"When it comes to religious beliefs and moral values, no position is right or wrong" - New Haven Register, 4/26/07
I kid thee not.
"How DARE you tell a rape victim that they are sinning by trying to avoid being victimized further?!? It is people like you that drive people out of the faith and into heresy."
To this I can only say, Get behind me, satan. You are thinking with the ways of man and NOT God who is the author of life.
To say that ovulation 'tests' are going to be given each and every time is nonsense; it simply will NOT happen. There will be the wink and the nod and then the pill.
We do not look to God in all things, Who does allow and bring good out of evil. Rape is an evil thing. To prevent the implanting of a fertilized egg by birth control pills and plan b is also an intrinsicly evil thing. One can rationalize all they want with that.
As a matter of fact, I know a holy lady from my parish. She never married but she has a son for she was the victim of a rape. She would not change having had that son for anything in this world. The same rationale behind abortion is the thing that no one should have to have an unwanted pregnancy, etc.
The worldly thinking prevails. The 'situational ethics' prevails. The 'material but not formal cooperation' prevails as reasons to justify acts that are against the Author of life are given the green light.
Naturally, I thought about all this long and hard before I left my profession some years ago. And I went to 6 priests, an ex-priest, and a moral theologian on this issue. Well, I was only 'materially' cooperating with the evil and by stepping out of the sequence, I would change nothing and so on. There are other Catholic pharmacists and they do not have a problem, I was told. I had a problem in that the Holy Spirit was nagging me. The moral theologian said I should seek another way to make a living. And finally I went to a conference and Fr. Pablo Straub was my confessor. And I told him the story. And he asked if he could pray aobut this. And he held on to that big crucifix and closed his eyes and there was silence for many many minutes. Finally he looked at me and said, "Our Lord would be pleased if you did not do this anymore." I knew it! I knew it in my soul. The next day Father gave a powerful homily on the BIG LIE of contraception.
When we say that it is okay to use contception here or there for this reason or that, it is only a matter of time when the next reason becomes 'okay'. And so on. Hey, I am a product of the times too. My pastor said contraception was a matter of conscience and in years past I did not have one, being 19 years between confessions. I had my politically correct two children and my tubes ligated. My catholic doctor did not have a problem either. The big lie played out in my own life..
I am from the Hartford Archdiocese and I feel so betrayed. If there are "serious doubts" about how the pill works (just look at what the manufacturer says to remove your doubt) then err on the side of caution. Have we entered the end times??? What can we *do* to help the bishops to stand up to the state??? We can't be afraid to suffer for the Kingdom of God.
Magdalen, I couldn't agree more. Well said.
Grammar / Clarity comment:
In several places in the blog post, reference is made to prOscribing Plan B. In the interests of clarity, this should be edited to read "prEscribing" Plan B. Proscribing is what the Church has been trying to do for the past year, and an activity which the Bishops have apparently conceded as futile.
Will the Conn. Bishops be automatically excommunicated for being complicit in an abortion if the administration of the Plan B drug actually causes abortion? The damage done to the Church over a perceived change in the teaching of the Church is incalculable, all so that the Catholic Churches can continue to operate hospitals. It is time for a Bishop to say no to these discriminatory laws, and let the chips fall where they may.
It an elderly relative of mine grandmother had had an abortion after a rape, then 10 children of her child would not have been born, including a Catholic priest. The gates of hell ....
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007...p/
07092807.html
Once again, it shall be noticed in this thread who is happy with the bishops' remarks and who is unhappy.
I hope that the Vatican speaks and acts quickly on this. Now we have the whole nation of Catholic thrown into confusion. Are the bishops complicit or not in grave sin? Are they automatically excommunicated or not? Can Catholics use 'Plan B' if they personally decide they had been raped (for example, "I didn't really want to have sex with that guy last night anyway", or "oh darn, I regret even sleeping with that guy, I was drunk")? What the heck is going on here? Are we Anglicans? Please, Pope Benedict XVI, tell us what the teachings of the Church are! Are these bishops teaching the Truth, or have they become renegades? What are we supposed to believe?
I find the idea of this law, and the act it implies, heartbreaking.
However, just to think through this out loud, I would ask whether the arguments against the pill (as probably distinct from IUDs) have ever traditionally rested strongly on the abortifacient possibilities of the Pill. I am guessing no.
If this is true then the ovulation test is something rather extraordinary in many ways. First of all, it is not evaluative or diagnostic of the current situation of the patient but it is predictive of the future state of the patient. It is also an inexact predictor: it determines a greater likelihood of conception. But a positive ovulation test does not guarantee that there will be a conception--so that even a positive test might not cause an abortion, because conception might not occur even under fertile circumstances. Conversely, a negative test does not guarantee that no conception will take place.
To speak very inexactly, it seems to me that a pregnancy test is an ordinary means, while an ovulation test could be seen as an extraordinary means. It is morally, absolutely necessary to determine whether there is a pregnancy that has already occurred. But the responsibility of making a predictive test of the greater possibility of a potential pregnancy might be arguably less binding.
What this reasoning doesn't safeguard is the life of the embryo. Of course this is completely tragic. But I think a case could be made that it is not absolutely morally binding.
Knights of Columbus who want to know their Supreme Chaplain's position can check out Bishop Lori's blog: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007...p/
07092807.html
This is very bad news.
Oops, I pasted in the wrong link to Bishop Lori's blog. Here is the correct link: http://www.bishoploriblog.org/
Thanks for the link.
Kathy,
maybe this is too late for you to see this, but the problem with the "pregnancy test-as-ordinary-means" vs. "ovulation test-as-extraordinary-means" hypothesis is that a pregnancy test is completely worthless this early in a pregnancy. It only is able to detect the amounts of pregnancy hormone that the baby is making once it has already implanted, which is about a week down the road from when the woman will be showing up in the ER after being raped.
Stacey, exactly. Pregnancies tests do not reveal the medical fact relavant to the use of Plan B, namely, where there is an ovum present that may have already been fertilized - that's what the ovulation test would help determine. And if we are in the "grey zone", it is more prudent to avoid treatments that might result in the death of a child, at least until conclusive scientific evidence challenges the previous findings.
Bishop Lori to be Guest Preacher at Mass for the Health Care Professions
17th Annual ROSE MASS for the Health Care Professions
Sunday, March 2
10:30 a.m.
Church of the Little Flower
Bethesda, MD
Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl
Archbishop of Washington
Principal Celebrant
Most Rev. William E. Lori
Bishop of Bridgeport, CT
Homilist
Stephen Ray Mitchell, M.D.
Dean of the School of Medicine, Georgetown University
Luncheon Speaker
Commenting by HaloScan
