Paragraph 14 of Humane Vitae states, “the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children … Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” Bishop claims there is no Church teaching. Cecil
A good question. CRW, I've had similar experiences of rationalizations in my own life. It is easy to sit back and agree with JPII as I key this into the computer. It is much more difficult when the idiosyncrasies of life present concrete challenges. Did you notice how the article points out that a long, vigorous, legal battle would be very costly. Maybe some of these dioceses have been strained by the financial fallout of the sex abuse scandal. It is sad to think that money would cloud discernment, but it happens. I am sorry to say that there have been times in my business when a tight, money situation, has stretched my ethical principles. God, pour forth your corrective wisdom upon these bishops who are in the heat of battle. May bad example be nipped in the bud. Forgive us and transform us through your awesome mercy! Cecil, don't misunderstand me. I do agree with your position and am sorely grieved. I am quick to judge, however, and must exercise humility to avoid rashness in my anger. In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
Mario, We need the bishop's to draw the line in the sand or the battle ground which is already on rocky ground will be lost. This bishop now has the rest of the nation bishop's at battle stations. I don't think something important as life should be lost over a lawsuit. Cecil
I remember one hearing that Pope Paul VI during the war in Biafra in Africa allowed nuns who had been raped to have abortions. I hope this is not true. I think it is so hard now to speak out. You do not want to seem heartless and on the other hand....But I think the Bishops were wrong.
I really don't know what to make of all this. My initial reaction is shock and repugnance. Honestly though, I don't fully understand the medical aspect of all of this. Is an actual zygote being destroyed in the process? It sounds like they are talking about using Plan B, only before ovulation, which would mean there is no egg and no fertilization, thus, no zygote to destroy. Rape is not a unitive act. A woman has no morale obligation to allow the rapist's seed to fertilize her egg, and thus, be implanted within her. If the fertilization can be avoided, then there is no zygote to destroy, making the procedure something different than abortion. If we're talking an actual fertilized egg, then yes, the practice would be immoral. Then again, does there have to be a zero percent chance of a zygote being destroyed in order to find Plan B acceptable? Everytime we walk out the door there is risk involved, so how low a probability would the destruction of a zygote have to be before Plan B would be acceptable? But, like I said, I really don't understand what exactly they are claiming happens from a medical standpoint. At this point, I feel like the medical and ethical issues involved her are not very clearly defined, yet (at least not to average jane's, like me). So, for myself, I think that it's premature to accuse the bishops of caving on abortion because of money issues.
Rain, thanks for this insight. I never considered the fertilization period becoming a factor. I guess that the ideal scenario is to prevent fertilization all together, at least in this situation. -jay
