It's Official. Certain "Catholic Bishops" Approve Of Abortions In "Catholic" HospitalsArchbishop Lefevbre was "excommunicated" for what, again? At least he never murdered anyone
HARTFORD, May 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Medical Association, the largest professional organization of Catholic physicians in the U.S. is resolutely opposed to the use of the abortifacient morning after pill (also known as 'emergency contraception' or its generic name Plan B) in Catholic Hospitals because of its potential to cause abortions. Nevertheless, the Catholic Bishops of both Connecticut and Wisconsin and other states have publicly admitted that their Catholic hospitals are distributing such pills to rape victims.
In a joint April 25 letter signed by the Bishops of Connecticut, Archbishop of Hartford Henry Mansell, and Bishop of Bridgeport William Lori, the prelates state: "It is important to repeat that Connecticut's Catholic hospitals do provide emergency contraception." Later in the letter they add, "We would not object to passage of a statute that would require all hospitals to adopt protocols requiring the distribution of Plan B to sexual assault victims when medically appropriate."
LifeSiteNews.com has learned that some Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, California, Washington also offer so-called 'emergency contraception' to some rape victims.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't The Church teach the following;
2272 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church ~ Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
So where the hell's the outrage? In case some folks still don't get it, allow me to break this down in no uncertain terms;
These bastards are murdering children. And to make matters worse.... Rome will do absolutely nothing.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
11:47 AM
29 Comments:
Wow a refreshingly gutsy blog!
You were in the Marine Corp? I was a helicopter mechanic in the US Navy. We loved tricking the Jarines into push-starting our helicopters *wink* *grin* Though of course there's nothing funny about the sight of five marines pushing a 30 (or more?) ton helicopter... If you want to see a pack of sailors with their jaws hanging to the ground just visit a local airfield containing both MH-53 Sea Dragons and visiting Marines...
I miss seeing big hunky Jarines in uniform. (I looked but I did not touch. I was a good girl!!) Life is rather dull on this wee isle when ever I think about my navy days. Oh but I'm married so I should even THINK about those memories!!! Pardon moi! (My husband is a hunk so I don't feel cheated hehehe!)
Anyhoo, cheers and GOD BLESS!
Archbishop Lefevbre was "excommunicated" for what, again? At least he never murdered anyone
That is a great point to make.
These bastards are murdering children. And to make matters worse.... Rome will do absolutely nothing.
How can they not? Perhaps enough Catholics will protest these bishops that Rome will have to incur formal excommunication.
Then again, I might be completely naive here.
I'm so mad I'm seeing red. If bishops won't listen to Catholic doctors who know what they're talking about, then who the hell will they listen to?
That reminds me to send in my yearly dues to the Cath Med Association--I'd almost forgotten about it. They're standing strong.
James,
It took me a long tome to figure it out, but I now realize that if one celebrated The Latin Mass without the express written consent of God Almighty and Major League Baseball... one will finds one's ass excommunicated.
However, if one is the head honcho for a diocese and authorizes the abortion pill, then said honcho is nominated for "Bishop of the Year".
I am very surprised at this, Bishops Listeki and Morlino (LaCrosse and Madison Dioceses) and Abp. Dolan (who is doing as good as can be expected in the wake of the damge done by Rembrandy Weaklend) are top notch bishops, very orthodox and in the past have gone on a limb and taken some bold stands. This story is quite vexing.
I can assure you that things may not be appearing to move but there are going-ons behind the scenes.
B16 has to be extremely careful about his public expressions and actions for the sake of the universal church - lefty (traitor) bishops have a lot of weight in the US, and the US has a lot of weight everywhere else. Knowing that these fiends will outright ignore and disobey a direct command from the Chair of Peter, he may well decide to use other methods to bring them into line - for example, the expected consistory next month may be used to elevate good and faithful American bishops to the red hat status. He has already appointed a handful of reliable American bishops to key positions in the Curia and other organs of the Vatican. All of these demonstrate how he is trying to lead the American Bishops by the example of their own brethren.
James writes: “These bastards are murdering children. And to make matters worse.... Rome will do absolutely nothing.
How can they not? Perhaps enough Catholics will protest these bishops that Rome will have to incur formal excommunication.
Then again, I might be completely naive here.”
Yes, James. Sorry, but you probably are.
Following is an interview between a reported from a radio station and Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco:
KCBS: “Is there room for disagreement with Church doctrine by Catholics in your view? For example, can some believe in a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion,,,”
Did the good bishop use the opportunity of speaking on the air to educate non-Catholics and unknowing Catholics by answering thus? “First, there is no such thing as a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn baby. Second, no, there is no room for disagreement between an expectant mother and Church teaching. A woman who has an abortion and everyone who assists in the act commits a mortal sin, has put their soul at risk of eternal damnation, is automatically excommunicated, and must confess to a bishop to be reinstated into the Church.” Noooooo. Instead he said:
Niederauer: “The Church is a very forgiving and very loving institution and hangs in with people all their lives long...Unity may not be uniformity but I think we have to say that there is a teaching of the Church on abortion...and it may be that there are those who struggle with that teaching. But, we cannot say, well, you can believe anything you want.”
So much for a successor of the Apostles, appointed by the Pope to replace the previous ordinary of Sodom on the Bay, whom he brought to the Vatican to be his right-hand man.
Robert,
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I for one, am fed-up with allowing modern-day luthers to run riot and rape Holy Mother the Church on a daily basis all in the premise that it's acceptable for "the sake of the universal church".
Are we the theological equivilent of Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't allow blood transfusions, even if the person will die?
We have a cancer within The Church, that is spreading at a shockingly fast rate. Do we perform surgery, and cut the malignancy out, or opt not to due to "the unity of the body"?
____________________________
FAB,
How true!! What you cited perfectly illustrates the hypocracy ---
Niederauer: “The Church is a very forgiving and very loving institution and hangs in with people all their lives long...
So Archbishop Lefevbre was "hung in there with" for his entire life? Yeahhhhhh..... riiiiiiight.
But if you're an abortion approving bishop......
_________________________
FD,
Proof positive of the schizo-theology these guys have. Just look at the article that Paul posted concerning the double-speak of Cdl George.
Interesting you should use the cancer analogy. I was once a medical student (I left for the sake of my sanity, and other wonders) and one of the first things we learned was "the most obvious treatment for any disease may not always be the most appropriate". Certainly, I would love to see the Church jettison certain shepherds today, but it's not just the men that are the problem. There would be five more to take each one's place. It is the very culture of your nation that needs reform, and Big Ben won't achieve that just by lopping off a few heads.
When France and Spain were under the notorious Albigensian heresy, even the war and inquisition could not bring them back. Instead, God sent Saint Dominic to convert their hearts. He worked selflessly for decades, with pitiful successes at first, but by the time he was done Albigensian was utterly defeated and the Catholic West experienced a resurgence (unfortunately, it looks like Europe needs another Dominic and another Francis).
Fish rot from the head down.
"Niederauer: “The Church is a very forgiving and very loving institution and hangs in with people all their lives long..."
TRUE--but then you die, and if you have not reformed yourself and turned away from sin, guess what--your going to burn in HELL for eternity! Our BABY KILLER bishops who are corrupting our Church will be held accountable--by God!
Yeah, I got called out locally for commenting on our bishops actions. We have the advance directive and "rape remedy" plan in action thanks to the approval of our local bishop. He even booted our local Right to Life organization prior to elections last year. It's becomeing so fashionable as of late!
Robert,
The longest journey begins withthe first step. Possibly a few heads proverbially lopped off would be a fine start.
Some clarification on the quotes from Bishop Lori:
Catholic hospitals in CT already provide emergency contraception only after a pregnancy test has been administered. If the victim is not pregnant, the hospital gives her the drug in order to prevent pregnancy. Seeing as how nothing about a rape constitutes the unitive portion of proper sexual relations, it is not sinful to prevent the procreative aspect of the act. However, if the victim is already pregnant (and thus there now exist two victims), Catholic hospitals do not administer emergency contraceptives, nor to they refer the victim to someone who will, nor will they refer the victim to any sort of abortion provider.
Connecticut Catholics had to fight to make sure that this pregnancy test was allowed under the legislation, and since the bill confirms their current practice, they are not opposed to its institution.
To repeat: Catholic hospitals in Connecticut do not administer abortifacients if there is any chance of performing an abortion. No one is dying in these circumstances. Please read the entire story next time, and give the Lord Bishop an opportunity to do the right thing. Thank you.
And what's your source on this, Doug?
In the meantime, I'll stick with the sourc e and info I've already provided.
To repeat: In a joint April 25 letter signed by the Bishops of Connecticut, Archbishop of Hartford Henry Mansell, and Bishop of Bridgeport William Lori, the prelates state: "It is important to repeat that Connecticut's Catholic hospitals do provide emergency contraception." Later in the letter they add, "We would not object to passage of a statute that would require all hospitals to adopt protocols requiring the distribution of Plan B to sexual assault victims when medically appropriate."
A woman who is raped is a victim of violence, and she is not required to 'give of herself' or be open to life when someone has attacked her and used her body without consent. It's not really sex at all. Rape is about violence and control not about sex. It's totally different than consensual and especially married sex where the spouses are to give of themselves for the other's benefit in accordance with God's co creative plan. In a rape situation none of this applies. Offering women Plan B under these circumstances helps to prevent fertilization or implantation and under the principal of double effect what is intended is not to abort a baby, but to prevent the woman from bearing the burden of another person using and exploiting her human nature as a woman, and her fertility which she has no control of.
I think this article misses the mark when it goes on explaining the efficacy of Plan B, but it fails to recognize that there ARE and have always been circumstances where the Church recognizes that there may be sufficient reason to risk causing the death of a human fetus i.e. ectopic pregnancy. This falls under the principal of double effect also where the intention is to save the mothers life by removing a fallopian tube where a fetus is lodged thereby endangering the mother's life. In removing the tube where the fetus is, the mother's life is saved and the fetus, as a consequence of removing the tube, dies.
I'm sure we will here more from theologians and hopefully the Holy See abut Plan B in rape cases.
Matthew,
No one is arguing that rape has absolutely nothing to do with love. We all know that it's an act of violence.
But I think here is the fatal flaw in your argument... you stated Offering women Plan B under these circumstances helps to prevent fertilization or implantation...
OK, WHAT was being implanted? Could it possibly be an unborn child? Yes, it is.
You also stated that there ARE and have always been circumstances where the Church recognizes that there may be sufficient reason to risk causing the death of a human fetus i.e. ectopic pregnancy.
Can you cite the difinitive Church Teaching that states that... and I don't mean some quote by some generic priest.
And I hate to tell you this, but what you stated concerning the "Church allowable procedures" that entail the death of an unborn child are , quite simply, abortions. And no amount of Modernist verbal gymnastics can change that.
I do believe that The Church defines any artificial (vice spontaneous) abortion is "intrinsically evil". And we both know what "intrinsically" means.
Dear Vir Speluncae Catholicus,
Thanks for your comments. I must say that what I quoted was what was told to me by a very good friend of mine. Perhaps she is mistaken. I emailed Matt Abbott and he referred me to Judie's column on this.
Is there any top Vatican officials that have spoken definitively on Plan B?
I have no agenda but to follow the Authentic teachings of the Catholic faith.
Matthew,
You're a stand-up guy, I'll give you that. And I can respect that.
Anyhow, yes, I'd say your friend was mistaken. As we both know, the Church has categorized abortion... and abortion... as intrinsically evil. And as we all know, that means that NO GOOD can ever, ever become of it. No wiggle room, no provisions, no if's, and's or but's.
Like you, I endevour to follow the Authentic Teachings of The Church. But unlike you, I do have an agenda... to fight Modernism, Moral Relativism, and Creeping Protestantism within The Church. *evil grin*
Oops, that was suppose to read "...any abortion..."
Thanks vir speluncae catholicus. Can you provide me with a credible link that authentically explains the PRINCIPAL OF DOUBLE EFFECT and where it can be applied.
I am really confused about this.
Also that agenda you have let me state this: Private Matthew reporting for duty in that Operation!!
I can't pull a link out out of my hat. As someone who not too long ago received the bachelor's in philosophy, I am very familiar with the principal of double effect. There are two components to a valid assertion of the principal of double effect. The first is the actus reus: is it an intrinsically evil act? The second is an intent component, the mens rea.
The key here is that it is permissible for a rape victim to use violent force to defend against the physical attacks of a rapist. A woman, thus, uses Plan B to defend herself against the seed of a rapist. So this is not an "exception" to church teaching on contraception, because it involves the justified defensive use of a contraceptive substance.
I think that much of the confusion about "exceptions" results from an undue focus on substance instead of acts. But ultimately, ethics is the study of human action, not of substance.
In CT, a urine test is administered to determine whether or not a woman is ovulating. If she is in the ovulation cycle, they will not allow her Plan B because it prevents implantation, thus having an abortifacient effect; this is the intrinsically evil act that is not allowed.
It was particularly upsetting to see this inaccurate article because of the persecution currently being visited upon us by the General Assembly.
See Archbishop Mansell's Column:
http://www.archdioceseofhartford.org/writings2/archbmansell_column_07-05-01.htm
Also see the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare, which is particular law in the U.S. (canon law having effect only in U.S. dioceses):
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml
I hope this helps. The Lifesite people have some correcting to do.
James B. in CT
James,
Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with any "PRINCIPAL OF DOUBLE EFFECT" within Church Teaching that authorizes abortion under any given set of circumstances.
That certain principle may have effects in other philosophical/theological/moral questions... but no where in the official teachings of Holy Mother The Church when it comes to authorizing abortion.
A couple of things I would like to mention to you... "the seed" of the rapist, as you put it, that's being denied life... are you ref'ing to the fertilized egg? As we both know, that is human life. Very, very early in it's development... but human life, nonetheless.
Now if you are in favor if the termination of the rapists semen, then I'm in wholehearted agreement with you.
A child who is a product of rape is still a child who deserves life. I'm absolutely sure that you agree with me.
With that said, report for duty at 0400 Monday morning!!! *evil grin*
Vir Speluncae Catholicus,
Perhaps let me clarify. The principle of double effect does not justify an intrinsically evil act. Church teaching declares abortion to be an act that is intrinsically (by its very nature) evil. Thus, it can be concluded that the principle of double effect does not justify abortion. However, we must be very careful, as to how we define abortion.
Fundamentally, the inception of life happens upon the fertilization of egg by sperm. This is characterized by the unzipping of DNA to form the DNA of a unique human being. Thus, the argument is that the moment you have a fertilized egg with unique DNA, you have human life.
And any termination proceeding from that moment of inception would thus be an abortion. This would be evil.
Plan B is a strong dose of progesterone, which makes the body simulate pregnancy, preventing ovulation, thus causing the rapist's sperm to die without fertilizing an egg.
The problem is that the progesterone has an abortifacient effect on a fetus that has completed the fertilization process.
This is why the ovulation test is required. The ovulation test establishes evidence that fertilization may have occured, in which case, the Catholic hospitals would not distribute Plan B.
So the key here is that Plan B does not have an abortifacient effect all of the time, only post-fertilization. The Catholic Church takes the best, most reasonable steps to establish whether fertilization has occured, to prevent an abortion from occurring.
The deceptive term "emergency contraception" does little to describe the contents of the substance in question.
The controversy presented in the article is— how accurate are the ovulation tests? The answer is that they are the best tests that are out there and have been approved as the standard by the American bishops. The doctor quoted is making the point that they may not be not correct 100% of the time. They are, however, as reasonably reliable as one could expect.
We must remember that knowledge is one of the components of grave sin. Given the absence of evidence in a negative test, the knowledge component thus cannot enter in.
James
James,
Excellent points you raise. I think you and I are in closer agreement than most would think.
I do understand what you are trying to say re: Plan B not having an abortifacient effect all of the time, hence your defense of the bishops in question.
But to that I must ask... do you think that The Catholic Medical Association might know a little more about "the morning after pill" and all it entails, just a wee bit more than the bishops in question?
Seriously, there has to be a reason as to who this association of Catholic doctors is so resolutely opposed to the use of this particular drug.
As you stated, how accurate is the ovulation test? If in doubt, life gets the benifit of the doubt.
vir speluncae catholicus:
Regarding the CMA, on the surface you would think they would know more about this then a Bishop would but then you would think that a Bishop would know more about authentic Catholic teachings then a layman would you but reality is different eh!!
How right you are, Matthew. Reality IS different!
I guess what bothers me most is that these bishops , besides not listening to the "duty experts" before making their decision, aren't erring on the side of life.
Vir Speluncae Catholicus,
Perhaps, the question might be phrased as this, is a test that is less than 100% accurate, even if it is 95% accurate or 99% accurate, an acceptable test in this case?
The CMA might have a point about the bioethical implications of Plan B. If so, they need to a better job of communicating the point to the USCCB, lobbying them to modify the Ethical Directives.
The other issue here, that you need to consider is the legal angle. Legally, if the bishops can argue that state laws forcing them to distribute Plan B in the wrong circumstances violate the Ethical Directives, they therefore violate canon law. Thus, because canon law is a matter of internal Church discipline, the state cannot come in and monkey with it. It becomes a much more difficult point to argue if a bishop attempts to impose a higher stanrd in his diocese that is at variance with the rest of the country.
And I guess, this is the problem with the sensationalist lifesite article. It portrays the situation as if the bishops of the Hartford province are doing something that the Church prohibits and is not done in other provinces. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are following the law as it is written, in the same way all the other American dioceses do.
And so this is my problem— that it takes the statements of Archbishop Mansell and Bishop Lori out of context— and very strongly imputes wrongdoing that is not present.
The CMA may be right, but if so they need to take their case to the bishops. Otherwise it is nothing more than rhetoric.
James B from CT
The CMA may be right, but if so they need to take their case to the bishops. Otherwise it is nothing more than rhetoric.
When the CMA publically came out against "the morning after pill", that sounds an awful lot to me like they've already notified anyone and everyone.
Possibly the bishops simply chose to ignore the CMA.... just like how many chose to ignore The Holy Father, Canon Law, the Magesterium, etc?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home