It's been paralyzing as an NFP teacher and a lecturer on TOB from Connecticut to think about this and believe it is actually happening. But plenty of people in blogdom have plenty to say. Here's some of it:
The American Papist comments: ""Reluctant compliance", as Bp. Lori calls it, is hardly an ideal state of affairs....I think the precedent of giving "reluctant compliance" to intrusive laws is imprudent. Practically speaking, it is no different than full compliance."
The Curt Jester comments: "I think what I found most disappointing about the Bishop's letters is that it seemed all about the prudence of challenging and resisting the law and zero emphasis on possibly allowing Catholic hospitals to kill human beings in the name of prudence."
An anonymous poster at the Papist comments:"If an elderly relative of my grandmother had had an abortion after a rape, then 10 children of her child would not have been born, including a Catholic priest."
Blogger 'She Said' from The Connecticut Catholic reports: " 'For those very same bishops to do a 180-degree turnabout two days before the legislation becomes law, without any adequate explanation, is incomprehensible,' Cafero said. 'It shows apparent disregard and disrespect for the political process and those of us who worked in their behalf.'
She continues: "I wonder what changed. Why didn't the CT Conference change their Plan B protocols 2 years ago? It would have saved me and countless other loyal Connecticut Catholics time spent writing letters, talking to fellow parishioners, defending Catholic teaching, protesting with several small children at the Capitol. What a waste of time! A holy, Catholic friend of mine can only think of the poor souls lost. But me, I'm concerned with the egg on our collective faces."
matthew archbold at Creative Minority Report says:" 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."
Diogenes at CWNews says: "Last week the bishops said the state law imposed a morally unjustifiable obligation on hospitals. This week they say it doesn't. If you don't perceive a change in teaching, get yourself fitted for a miter. "
Then there's the pity, prayers and punishment (courtesy of The American Papist):
"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 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. "
" 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?"
"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."
" The modernist heresy continues in Connecticut."
" I am from the Hartford Archdiocese and I feel so betrayed. If there are "serious doubts" about how the pill works, then err on the side of caution. 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."
" I hope that the Vatican speaks and acts quickly on this. Now we have the whole nation of Catholics thrown into confusion. Are the bishops complicit or not in grave sin? Are they automatically excommunicated or not? Are these bishops teaching the Truth, or have they become renegades? What are we supposed to believe?"
Linda
ReplyDeleteRead the earliest combox comments when this first broke at American Papist. There was a Catholic Doctor, Mary, who did reasearch in this area and found that Plan B did not thin the uterine lining despite what the box says since such box liner notes may well be written by the corporate law office and perhaps based on Plan B having a chemical(s) in common with birth control pills but Mary's point was that the actual research did not support the contention even if the box stated it. The Bishops may have collided with such research as Mary did when they made their decision.
I respect Mary's research and conclusions, but for every study there is a counter-study.
ReplyDeleteChris Kahlenborn has differing results. His conclusions read as follows:
DATA SYNTHESIS: The 2 most common types of hormonal EC used in the US are the Yuzpe regimen (high-dose ethinyl estradiol with high-dose levonorgestrel) and Plan B (high-dose levonorgestrel alone). Although both methods sometimes stop ovulation, they may also act by reducing the probability of implantation, due to their adverse effect on the endometrium (a postfertilization effect). The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle.
With that in mind, why not stand firm on requiring the ovulation test prior to administering?
If there is doubt, I believe the Bishops should be erring on the side of caution-and on the side of life.