Subscribe
E-mail
Posts
Comments

Bishops Give In (…For Now?)

No–in answer to the wiesenheimer who left the voice mail on my cell–FIC won’t be taking up a petition drive to excommunicate the bishops. Hartford’s Bishop Macaluso, in fact, was one of the key speakers at our September 12th Rally for Liberty, and our relationship with the Catholic Church remains strong.

But I understand where the caller was coming from. Indeed, I have been fielding similar calls all day. Here’s why:

HARTFORD, Conn. – Connecticut’s Roman Catholic bishops have changed course and agreed to administer emergency contraception to all rape victims at Catholic hospitals just days before a new state law requiring them to do so takes effect.

The church, which runs four of the state’s 30 hospitals, has been fighting the legislation for the past two years, arguing that lawmakers were forcing medical personnel to violate their religious beliefs and perform chemical abortions by providing emergency contraception, sold as Plan B, to women who are ovulating.

The Catholic bishops were considering legal action, claiming the new law infringes on their state and federal constitutional rights.

But Catholic Bishops of Connecticut and leaders of the Catholic hospitals said in a joint statement Thursday that “since the teaching authority of the church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work,” the hospitals will be allowed to provide Plan B to rape victims without first requiring ovulation tests.

The Courant’s article calls the bishops’ shift “a major softening of their position” and that is certainly the case. I should note for the record that just last week FIC sent an e-mail alert trying to stop the Plan B law from taking effect. (That e-mail sparked the usual reaction from the state’s most virulent pro-abortion bloggers, which you can read here.)

So, does this mean the battle is over? Maybe not. Here’s two paragraphs that appear in the AP story in today’s Republican-American but not in the online version linked to above:

The Rev. John Gatzak, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Hartford, said the bishops are also leaving the door open to re-examine the issue if the science behind how emergency contraception works becomes more definite.

“The change in position is due to uncertainty,” Gatzak said. “It’s due to the fact that the Vatican hasn’t come out with a pronouncement and it’s due to the fact that there are questions as to how Plan B actually works.”

And the Courant piece ends with this:

The bishops stated that the issue could be revisited in the future.

“If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened,” the statement said.

We’re going to try something different with comments for this post. Comments in this thread are open only to the pro-life side. I’ve been getting your calls and e-mails all day. Consider this blog post your forum to express your reactions, free from any harrassment from the opposition.  

10 Responses to “Bishops Give In (…For Now?)”

  1. on 28 Sep 2007 at 3:37 pmVincent

    Rev. Gatzak says the change in position is due to “uncertainty … as to how Plan B works.” But that is nothing new. Last spring the Catholic Transcript carried an article titled “Understanding Plan B” that went into the details of how Plan B works. FIC also linked to it. The article pointed out that the objection to Plan B is very narrowly drawn. When administered to a rape victim it is not a contraceptive within the meaning of catholic teaching on human sexuality because the sexual act was not an act of love and mutual self giving. It was rape. So, anovulant therapy is permitted. But such anovulant treatment (i.e. Plan B) is permitted only so long as the intervention does not destroy a human life.

    That article pointed out that the real objection to Plan B as anovulant therapy for a rape victim is that Plan B prevents implantation, but the absence of moral certainity that it doesn’t. That’s why the LH surge test is needed – to add confidence that Plan B can still operate by its primary mechinism, suppression of ovulation. So the uncertanity has always been out there. That is not a new development that can explain the evolution of the bishops position on this – unless they had previously been poorly advised by the experts they consulted.

    What is left is a matter of prudential judgment. How much certainty is needed before risking an abortive effect by administration of Plan B? If the chance that Plan B acts to prevent implantaion is only theory without solid science behind it, then it seems unfair and unjust to deny it to a rape victim. But if the evidence is more substantial, though still uncertain, it would suggest that restraint is called for since the gravity of harm (i.e. death) would be very great if realized.

    The part of the bishops statement that worries me is the comment that administration of Plan B without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act. How can anyone say that? Lack of knowledge cannot change the nature of an “intrinsically evil” act. I thought the whole point was that things evil in and of themselves remain so even if you don’t know they are bad – in fact, even if you think they are good. They either are or arn’t. So, if down the road new scientific knowledge changes our certitude about Plan B and it is established that it does (or likley) prevents implantation, will adminsitration without an ovulation test be held to be “intrinsically evil”? Seems to me it would have to be. If it would be then, it is so now. Given the uncertainties discussed above it may not be imputable or culpable, but its nature remains fixed. Otherwise it would undermine the entire notion of intrinsic evil.

    Any comments?

  2. on 28 Sep 2007 at 6:44 pmDoug

    Admittedly, I am angry and disheartened, although I am struggling to keep an open mind. While our bishops are (at least, for now) not fighting Plan B, they are also calling it “flawed.” That gives me the same kind of queasy feeling in my stomach that I had several years ago when President Bush said that campaign finance reform was unconstitutional….and then he signed it into law.

    My knee-jerk reaction, which I am trying to suppress, is that the bishops capitulated. I hope I am wrong.

    I just question why we had this fight in the first place if the bishops are now backing out. I understand that science continues to evolve, but it almost seems like they didn’t have all their ducks in a row before diving into this fight.

    The bishops are leaving an out clause by saying that they will revisit the issue if in fact Plan B is proven to produce chemical abortions. Just how are they going to realistically ascertain that information? And will they actually seek it, or just wait until it gets handed to them on a silver platter? Many daunting questions still remain unanswered. I highly doubt that any patient seeking the Plan B pill would want to voluntarily speak up afterward if it does produce chemical abortions.

    The premise the bishops are making to explain their reversal on this issue does make some sense from what I have read, but ironically, like with Plan B, I also see it as “flawed.” Somehow, something just doesn’t seem right.

    I am also somewhat confused. From what I have read, it seems that the bishops are giving Plan B a pass if it is only a contraceptive, but not if it is an abortifacient, yet both are against our Church’s tenets.

    I am very disturbed and unsettled by this recent change in course. I question the accuracy of the facts, and to a certain degree, I even question the motivation, or for that matter, lack thereof, may God forgive me.

    This law goes into effect on Monday. Undoubtedly, many will cheer. I won’t.

    And to the state legislater who was innocuoulsy quoted in the press as denying that there is no plan to exapand Plan B into forcing Catholic hsopitals into also doing abortions and euthanasia, I would only add, “not yet.” To eat an elephant, you do it one bite at a time. Liberty, religious or otherwise, is lost the same way, incrementally.

    I guess this is where prayer and faith come in.

    Peter, thanks for this post. By the way, I almost called you, too.

    Doug

  3. on 28 Sep 2007 at 8:07 pmVincent

    My comment (#1 above) should read in the first sentence of paragraph 2 that the real objection to Plan B is NOT that it prevents implantation, but the absence of moral certainty that it doesn’t. Typing too fast and left out the “not”. It is an argument that insufficent information in the face of grave risk of a serious nature compels restraint, not action.

    Doug, read it again in that light and I think you will see how the bishops got themselves in this jam. They started off asserting that Plan B had an abortive back-uo action in the event of ovulation, rather then carefully acknowledging that the possible abortive action is debated, that the debate is not insubstantial, and in the face of such uncertainty, restrait was the prudent course. And restraint would suggest no Plan B if testing showed a positive LH surge.

  4. on 29 Sep 2007 at 12:43 amJames

    I must be honest that I feel like I’ve been sold down the river. If this was acceptable, what was the point of the letter-writing and rallies in the spring? What was the point, if they were going to accept this law anyway?

    Also, at the moral level, isn’t it negligent- a sin of omission- to not determine the information provided by the ovulation test, if an innocent human life is at stake?

    I wonder to what extent this decision was influenced by the the legislators using the state’s poor as hostages. Since most of the money involved was medicare and medicaid reimbursements, that’s a heck of a risk to take.

    Ultimately, the bishops shouldn’t have backed down. They should have stood up and said, fine, then we won’t take your money anymore. Of course, the net result would be increased numbers of indigent patients at the other hospitals, which might have forced the legislators to make a better deal, due to the pressure on the health care system. Unfortunately, the bisops didn’t call their bluff.

    I honestly don’t understand it- I feel much the same way I did when I discovered the Latin Mass. Upset and scandalized. How can what was wrong in the spring be right now? I just don’t understand it. With this statement, the bishops sound more like apparatachiks from party central than successors to the apostles.

    Incidentally the disrespect and lack of liturgical discipline you see in our diocese may have something to do with the breakdown of Catholic identity and the passage of a law like this.

  5. on 01 Oct 2007 at 11:35 amDave

    As an outsider, I have to say that I find the RCC waffling on this issue to be perplexing. For example, consider Bishop Lori’s stern warning in April 2007 that the “Plan B” legislation puts us onto a “long road without a turning” and that it foreshadows the potential of future violations of religious liberty. Now we hear instead, in his September 29th blog entry, about a decision for “reluctant compliance” with a law that remains “seriously flawed”. And the reasoning for this change of plan? They say that after consulting with legal experts that a challenge to the law “would most likely not succeed”.

    Read more for yourself at http://www.bishoploriblog.org/

    Absent any more serious teeth than rhetoric itself, this response of seeming resignation by the RCC appears to be rather cowardly. It smacks of a political and economic calculation and of moral ambiguity, rather than the forthright and unabashed advocacy one would expect of leaders who wrap themselves in the mantle of apostolic succession.

    I am truly sorry if this offends – but I have to ask. Does Christ want us to follow Him as long as the path is easy, but excuse us from following is His ways when we encounter obstacles that make the path difficult and our progress seemingly “unlikely to succeed”? What a mischaracterization of His teachings that would be! Of course we are taught that He said: “Oh how narrow is the door and how difficult is the road which leads to life, and few are those who are found on it.” (Matthew 7:14)

    In the gospels, Jesus used the metaphorical example of salt to illustrate that we ought not to compromise or dilute the truth for the sake of harmony with the world. “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men” (Matthew 5:13)

    Hopefully we will see more develop in time than merely retreating from conflict on this issue, because the Church is called to do more than this – not because I or anyone else on earth demands it, but because we are subject to God’s authority and unwavering justice. “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9)

  6. on 03 Oct 2007 at 4:43 pmMegan

    Rep. Larry Cafero has issued a press release in which he chastises the Catholic church for not agreeing to this legislation earlier

  7. on 04 Oct 2007 at 7:45 amPeter

    The phrase “issued a press release” in Megan’s comment is a link that you can click on to take you to the document she’s referring to.

    Other key reactions on the local scene. The JI’s Chris Powell:

    http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18865530&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565860&rfi=6

    The Republican-American’s editorial:

    http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/10/02/opinion/288573.txt

    On the national scene, reaction on the Catholic blogosphere has reached a boil since last week’s news. There’s too many items to link to, but I can’t resist posting the most clever one I’ve seen:

    http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2007/10/archbishop-burke-refuses-communion-to.html

  8. on 04 Oct 2007 at 8:07 amPeter

    Given our opponents’ difficulties with reading comprehension, I should state plainly that the last link above is a parody.

  9. on 08 Oct 2007 at 8:11 amPeter

    Rep-Am has a front page, above-the-fold article this morning on local lay reaction to the Plan B reversal (subscription required to read full story):

    http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/10/08/news/289477.txt

    First Things has published “An Open Letter to the Bishops of Connecticut” by state resident Mike Augros:

    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=866

  10. on 15 Oct 2007 at 11:43 amPeter

    National Catholic Register editorial on “Connecticut’s Two Lessons”:

    http://ncregister.com/site/article/6268

Leave a Reply