AmericanPapist Comments
Quote:
"...pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another nearby source."
But what good does this do? If I were a pharmacist, I could not in good conscience give someone a referral for an abortifacient medicine, any more than I could fill the prescription myself. It seems to me that this decision doesn't really help pro-life pharmacists, if the above quote is accurate.
Paul
Not a referral but the location of another pharmacy. In moral theology there is a principle called the remote material cooperation in sin whereby what you do does not really further the sinful outcome which is going to happen anyway. A Catholic oil truck driver delivering oil to an abortion clinic is an example.
When Christ carried the cross, He was not furthering the crucifixion even though it might strike some people as cooperation. Likewise when Christ allowed Judas to know of His itinerary, Christ was not furthering the betrayal which would have happened anyway with a little more effort on Judas' part.
I'm with Paul on this one. I have actually talked to one of the Catholic Pharmacists working to stop this legislation and she consulted Catholic Ethicists as well to make sure they were informed. She told me that a Catholic Pharmacist cannot in good conscience even refer a person to another location where they know the Plan B will be sold.
Matt
People involved in an issue often talk to those who support their issue trenchantly. That is not always the best avenue to objectivity on matters that regard the very sacrificing of one's job since the advisor may be oblivious to all that that means in the individual case....and may not be in a jeapardized occupation himself.
Older priests are the ones I would only consult on matters of cooperation in sin which are the most complex. For example: how close can a nurse be to an abortion without sinning? Can she sterilize equipment three hours prior some of which equipment will be used in an abortion by other nurses who have proximate, formal cooperation? If you say she cannot and she gives up her job and then finds out later from an older priest that you were dead wrong, she erred in not asking the old to begin with.
Why older priests for such questions? Their ego is not enmeshed with the issue more likely... whereas a young ethicist may be seeking his own heroism in the eyes of others around the issue without knowing it.
Hence on prudence, Aquinas says to go to the old but he gives still other reasons:
"Hence in matters of prudence man stands in very great need of being taught by others, especially by old folk who have acquired a sane understanding of the ends in practical matters. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 11): "It is right to pay no less attention to the undemonstrated assertions and opinions of such persons as are experienced, older than we are, and prudent, than to their demonstrations, for their experience gives them an insight into principles." Thus it is written (Proverbs 3:5): "Lean not on thy own prudence," and (Sirach 6:35): "Stand in the multitude of the ancients" (i.e. the old men), "that are wise, and join thyself from thy heart to their wisdom."
I could not refer a customer to another pharmacy knowing that the point of my referral was to tell her where she could get the means of an immoral action.
Hi Bill,
I'm not going to argue the abstract theology with you. I am acquainted with the concept of remote material cooperation, and I am also aware that reasonable, well-informed Catholics can in good conscience disagree over precisely where to draw the line between an unacceptable level of cooperation and an acceptable level. However, I still would not be able to refer a "Plan B" prescription to another pharmacy in good conscience.
You also gave this example:
"A Catholic oil truck driver delivering oil to an abortion clinic is an example."
Well, if I were the truck driver in question, I could not in good conscience make the delivery to the abortion clinic. I'm not saying that Catholic theology necessarily prohibits me from doing so. Rather the point is that *I* could not (and I hope would not) do it.
Respectfully,
Paul
So Bill, tell us the principles the old folk will invoke to apply to this specific situation. I.e. make the argument: what is moral or not? Sure we ought to respect the old and those who have greater practical experience. But surely it's not merely their 'gut' we go on. Surely they can articulate why they'd advise one course of action over another.
If this wasn't about sex, perhaps it'd be clearer to us. If someone came to a Pharmacist to ask for drugs with which to kill themselves, would it be moral to tell them where to find the stuff or to refuse and instead intervene to insist they give a counsellor a call...i.e. NOT respect "their choice" but go the extra mile to CHANGE IT.
In our day and age it's time to start CHANGING people's choices and helping them see outside the secular box they've been trapped in. An "unexpected pregnancy" does not have to end in abortion. The woman does not have to fend for herself. People can be found to support her and her child -provide free health care, post-natal care, housing, jobs, etc.
Someone who is asking help to do something evil needs to be assisted to CHANGE their minds, not be told where and how to keep making the wrong decision.
Would a gun store owner be morally OK selling a gun to someone who told them they're suicidal? Or refraining but then telling them to check out another gun store? Would it be moral to NOT intervene and just 'let it happen'? I don't think so, and I don't know how old you have to be to make this omission suddenly morally OK when it comes to Plan B.
Commenting by HaloScan
