Bishop William Lori of the Diocese of Bridgeport wrote on his blog a post entitled “A Perspective on Plan B.”
Plan B, an issue previously discussed in this blog (“Sad State of the Constitution State”, April 24th—see “Archive”) is back in the news. Many of you posted comments about those media reports, so I’d like to offer a number of clarifications and some additional perspective.
Last spring, the Connecticut Bishops worked hard to defeat the so-called “Plan B” legislation. It’s not that the Church opposes administering Plan B to victims of rape; these women have suffered a gravely unjust assault. Last year, nearly 75 rape victims were treated in the four Connecticut Catholic hospitals; no one was denied Plan B as the result of the Catholic hospital protocols which required both a pregnancy test and an ovulation test prior to the administration of that drug.
What’s really at issue here is how much testing is appropriate to ensure that Plan B does not induce the chemical abortion of a fertilized ovum. There is uncertainty about how Plan B works. Its effect is to prevent fertilization of the ovum. Some believe, however, that in rare instances Plan B can render the lining of the uterus inhospitable to the fertilized ovum which must implant in it in order to survive and grow; many other experts dispute this. For their part, the Bishops of Connecticut felt it was best not only to administer the standard FDA-approved pregnancy test, but also an ovulation test. However, this course of action was only a prudential judgment, not a matter of settled Church teaching and practice. Other bishops and moral theologians hold that a pregnancy test alone suffices. Indeed, the Church does not teach that it is intrinsically evil to administer Plan B without first giving an ovulation test or that those who do so are committing an abortion.
Think about what he just said. How prudent should we be in order to ensure that the Church does not participate in the killing of a baby? The answer is “a lot of prudence.”
He continues:
Unfortunately, Connecticut Legislature decided last spring to settle the question of whether both tests are necessary, instead of letting the Church do so in her own way. The Governor signed into law a measure that forbids health care professionals from using the results of an ovulation test in treating a rape victim. We bishops, as well as health care professionals, continue to believe this law is seriously flawed and should be changed. You should also know that we carefully explored with very competent experts the possibility of challenging the law. Unfortunately, such a challenge would most likely not succeed. Failure of the hospitals to comply would put them and their staffs at risk.
So you believe the law is seriously flawed. In what way? Flawed because it may endanger a life? But not flawed enough to fight?
And you have to love his moral courage when he states that “unfortunately, such a challenge would most likely not succeed.” Would most likely not succeed to what end? The end game is not the litigation’s outcome. It is the sanctity of the Catholic Church at stake here. Bishop Lori’s view is horrendously worldly here.
In the course of this discussion, every possible option was discussed at length with medical-moral experts faithful to the Church’s teaching, with legal experts especially in the area of constitutional law, and with hospital personnel. “Reluctant compliance” emerged as the only viable option. In permitting Catholic hospitals to comply with this law, neither our teaching nor our principles have changed. We have only altered the prudential judgment we previously made; this was done for the good of our Catholic hospitals and those they serve.
There should be no “reluctant compliance” when it comes to morality. Judas practiced “reluctant compliance” to no good end.
At the same time, we remain open to new developments in medical science which hopefully will bring greater clarity to this matter. Above all, we continue to pray for the healing of those who are victims of sexual assault.
This is such a copout. The drug company’s own website states that, “In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium.”
The bishops fought against the law for months and then changed their minds. It’s not like the science changed. The fight just got harder. And maybe more expensive. We do not look to the Church for “Perspective on Plan B.” This country has plenty of perspectives. The bishops have shirked their responsibility of moral courage and it could have disastrous consequences for people who look to the Church for constancy.
October 3, 2007 at 11:29 am
Exactly Matthew. Also I cannot understand how the Bishops can say no one really knows how this drug works, and the Church has not really said something about it, when there is the crystal clear pronouncement of the Pontifical Academy for Life from 2000 (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html). If they said “there’s new science, the pronouncement doesn’t apply anymore”, I still think they would need to pruduce much more and conclusive evidence that it is certain that no chemical abortion is induced (and I’m sorry but I have to repeat that at least in Europe this pill is commonly known as “the abortion pill”, so without making any moral judgement of a particular person, generally it seems absurd to assert that in administering it there can be no intention of abortion whatsoever. In the Pontifical Academy’s words: “However, the woman who uses this kind of pill does so in the fear that she may be in her fertile period and therefore intends to cause the expulsion of a possible new conceptus.”). But as the Bishops (and many commenters on the blogs) do, just ignore the statement of the competent Academy of the Holy See is simply incomprehensible.
October 3, 2007 at 1:25 pm
The Bishop’s argument is absurd mainly because it is so inconclusive. They’re intentionally viewing the science as inconclusive because it’s easier to do so. Without moral constancy, the Church is just a socially benevolent organization.
October 3, 2007 at 7:27 pm
This man is sick, how does he not know that the child born out of this horrible crime may be the one to develop a cure for cancer?
This Bishop and so many within the Church today or demented or lost and dont even know their own teachings
The seminaries of the 1960’s to the 1980’s and even today as it is not really getting much better is a bastion of liberality.
Hans Kung and other liberal theologians have replaced St Thomas Aquinas. So many are leaving and either staying home, finding a “schismatic” traditional alternative, or finding a somewhat orthodox parish in the radius of 10 miles. My family and friends have tried all of the above while we pray for the Bishop Lori’s and Tod Browns to go away
October 4, 2007 at 3:41 am
Check me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe that a pregnancy test exisits that can detect a pregnancy (fertilized ovum) BEFORE implantation, or even within a week or so after implantation. None of the Bishops’ “medical experts” know this? So a girl who has been raped arrives at a Catholic emergency room. The rapist’s sperm has already connected with her egg–but the test administered then could not show positive for pregnancy. Someone explain the point of giving a pregnancy test at all!