Archbishop Burke v Connecticut Bishops Conference

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent decision by the Connecticut Bishops to allow them to dispense the Plan-B (the morning after pill), an abortifacient contraception, to rape victims in compliance with Connecticut law. Bluntly, while some arguements were made to justify it, I find them very shaky at best & think the Bishops should have had the courage to practice a little civil disobedience.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center issued a statement on the Bishops' decision. This final paragraph reads: "In matters that have not yet been decided definitively by the Holy See, The National Catholic Bioethics Center has refrained from adopting one or another position on a disputed question. However, in the matter of protocols for sexual assault, there is virtual unanimity that an ovulation test should be administered before giving an anovulant medication. The protocol the NCBC has supported requires the ovulation test because it provides greater medical and moral certitude that the intervention will have its desired anovulatory effect. The NCBC objects strongly to state mandates, such as those passed by Connecticut and Massachusetts, that do not allow health care professionals and facilities to exercise their best medical judgment and which do not protect the consciences of all parties. We also object to state mandates that do not allow the victim of sexual assault to have all the information necessary for a medical intervention so that she might make an informed judgment. However, the NCBC understands the judgment of the Connecticut bishops that the administration of a contraceptive medication in the absence of an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act. However, it is immoral to violate one’s conscience, including the corporate consciences of health care agencies, and the unwillingness of the state to allow an exemption of conscience makes the law unjust and onerous." (Emphasis mine)

I emphasis the last line as it seems to uphold my opinion that the Bishops should have had the spine to stand up & just say no to the law. The paragraph as a whole shows both sides of the arguement & also seems to be saying, OK we understand why you said what you said, but we think you are wrong. I think that the whole thing had too many howevers that could allow for more wiggle room than the statment intended. Let's pray that the Vatican quickly makes a strong statement calling for the Bishops to change thier position.

Fr. Euteneuer of Human Life International wrote an article pointing out soem of the errors he sees in the Bishops logic. (Plan A: Keep “Plan B” Out of Catholic Hospitals) & while he doesn't specifically use the term civil disobedience he basically calls on them to stand up to the Connecticut polititions & do so. "Acts of blatant coercion of Catholic consciences are already far advanced and will only continue unless the Church is willing to stand up and rebuke the arrogance of these coercive measures and carve out strict realms of conscience which are unreachable by activist courts and corrupt politicians. That will require Church leaders to be willing to fight ferocious battles against the dictators of relativism in order to assert our rights of conscience and faith. All Catholics, but especially our leaders, will have to be clear-headed and uncompromising in the face of the temptations to put our Catholic institutions in league with the liars and manipulators of the culture of death." The emphasis on certain parts is mine to show what I see that supports my view that civil disobedience should have been in order in Connecticut.

Father Euteneuer points out an historical fact about Connecticut: "Remember this same state was the origin of the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court case which legalized contraception! It is no wonder that Connecticut is reaping the rotten fruit of the seeds that it sowed over forty years ago."

Father also says that we need to keep praying as well as continue to be active in battling evils such as this. "I ask you to pray for the bishops, above all, who are usually the target of attack by the culture of death and are often surrounded by compromisers. We need their strong moral leadership unfettered by lawyers and “ethicists” who prevent them from taking up arms in the culture wars. We are at a point in our Church’s history where bishops and priests are being called to martyrdom for the sake of the Faith, and only prayer will give them that courage to embrace their vocations to the last drop of blood."

He goes on to say: "Secondly, we all need to make a firm decision to never be silent in the face of any form of chemical killing."

"Finally, stay tuned for more battles in more states with more Catholic healthcare institutions. . . . . . The vigilance of many great pro-life forces, coupled with prayer and massive protests from people of conscience will undoubtedly give our Church leaders the courage to imitate the Good Shepherd, who laid down His life for His sheep."

The battle for respect for life goes on. Today is Respect Life Sunday. It is the day for Catholic parishes & diocese to kick off the 2007-2008 Respect Life Program. It is a shame that the Connecticut Bishops aren't better practicing what they preach. Maybe they can learn a lesson from Archbishop Burke who is willing to stand up for what is right.

Here are the takes of some other bloggers:

The devil wins in Connecticut Judie Brown American Life League

Plan B & Connecticut bishops The Cafeteria is Closed
NCBC publishes statement on Connecticut Bishop's Plan B decision (with commentary) American Papist (includes links to his previous posts)

Update on Connecticut Law CUF Blog

Digging a Hole The Curt Jester

CT Bishops Give Up Catholicism Thoughts of a Regular Guy