Overstating your case . . . not inherently evil?

I have spoken to many people over the past few weeks about the Bishop's statement capitulating on Plan B and have a couple of theories. We all keep hoping that "the Bishop's must know something that we don't." Something so super-secret that they can't even tell it to their flock, I guess. Based on what we do know, here is what I am thinking (and I don't like what I am thinking) . . .

Charitable Interpretation A
The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that the Bishops chose to protect jobs and access to health care instead of "falling on their sword" over Catholic teaching on abortion and protecting nascent life. After all, the legislature dreamed up a scenario whereby - a recently raped victim, at a catholic hospital, is ovulating, and wants Plan B, but can't get it - has never happened, and it is unlikely to happen in the future. Anyway, if you read Bishop Lori's post on his blog about the subject, he basically states that their decision is about protecting the hospitals, i.e. money.

Charitable Interpretation B
But another reason the Bishops capitulated, that seems to be forming from various sources, is that the Bishops simply overstated their initial objection to Plan B. That the Bishops, the manufacturer of Plan B, and the Federal Drug Administration all overstated Plan B's ability to "thicken the walls of the uterus to prevent implantation" of a fertilized egg. That it all has been much ado about nothing. I can kind of believe it because if you think the FDA has 100% knowledge about all the drugs they approve, you would be naive. I can tell you that many times the side-effects or additional effects of a drug are overstated or exaggerated to protect against potential lawsuits and other reasons. I can envision a scenario where "thickening of the uterine wall" was added because it enhanced the drug's perceived effectiveness and/or because that could happen in theory. So you have a "perfect storm" of Bishops, a manufacturer, and licensee drawing lines in the sand over a side effect that probably never really happens, effectively anyway. After some serious digging, the bishops discovered that the manufacturer's claims were overstated and as a result, their opposition to Plan B was overstated.

If this charitable interpretation is true, however, the Bishops should still err on the side of life and not distribute Plan B, because there must have been some chance of creating a chemical abortion, even if the science isn't crystal clear. Additionally, if it was all a big misunderstanding, surely the bishops could have stated as much in their statement. Eating a little crow, instead of trying to create the impression they weren't breaking ANY laws - God's or the State.

When all else fails, try humor . . .

Saint Thomas Aquinas said "It is requisite for the relaxation of the mind that we make use, from time to time, of playful deeds and jokes." That line is so dry, it is actually funny. For your "relaxation of the mind" I've reproduced some playful satire about our bishops from Creative Minority Report, a hilarious catholic blog by Matthew Archbold. You may remember that Archbishop Burke spearheaded an effort to refuse communion to pro-abortion politicians during the last election cycle.

Archbishop Burke Refuses Communion to Connecticut Bishops

In a stunning move, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, a veteran of clashes between Catholic bishops and politicians, has now announced that he's turning his ire towards the bishops who ok'd Catholic hospitals administering of abortifacients.

Burke has attempted to for years to enlist fellow bishops to deny Holy Communion to wayward politicians. But now the conservative cleric is invoking the church's highest punishment -- mortal sin -- to persuade the lay and ordained Catholics who distribute Communion at Mass to safeguard the sacrament by refusing communion to the bishops of Connecticut.

Drawing on the works of the late Italian Jesuit scholar Felice Cappello, Burke says those ministers are "held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy.

On the other hand, Lesbian Priest of the Liberal Catholic Church Candy Feelgood said the Connecticut bishops are guilty only of "daring 21st century ecumenism."

"If they're guilty of anything it's loving too much," said Feelgood. "If Archbishop Burke is against these poor bishops receiving communion they can always come here. We actually leave the communion wafers in a bag and anyone can come up and take it and eat it. It comes with three different flavors of salsa dip too. There's no reason Jesus shouldn't taste good."

In a stunning move, Planned Parenthood is siding with Archbishop Burke in exclaiming their displeasure with the Connecticut Bishops. "We've monopolized the abortion industry for so long that we're not happy to see any competitors enter this line of business," said Planned Parenthood spokesperson Ivana Muerte. "If someone wants a baby dead they should have to come see us and we'll take care of the problem for the low low price of $148."

Muerte said the new competitor in the field may force the abortion giant to start discount abortions or perhaps offer a 2 for 1 deal on Sundays.

The Connecticut Bishops said they were still unsure of the science of abortion and the Church hadn't clearly issued any directives on the issue of murder.

Your jobs or your integrity . . .

To save jobs and money our Connecticut Bishops blinked on Catholic teaching. I'm not as angry as I was yesterday because I've concluded that the legislature basically used a straw-man to further their anti-religious fervor. We could have fought a much better campaign against their false teachings. After all, we have the truth on our side. But we lost fair and square, and only more involvement in the legislative process (and really better education of the Catholic public), earlier and more frequently, could have prevented the capitulation last week.

You can read Bishop Lori's 9/29/07 blog providing some of the background to the Conference's retreat and it ultimately boils down to a very tiny chance of killing a very tiny person versus the very real possibility of losing a lot of money, jobs and healthcare for many. sigh.

Consider this . . . the pro-abortion advocates at the legislature basically dreamed up what is really a fantasy scenario whereby a recently raped, ovulating woman, without a ride, at a Connecticut Catholic hospital really wants, but is denied, Plan B. This scenario is a far-fetched pro-choice fantasy and has never happened and probably never will. Nevertheless, they easily coax public opinion in their favor. It really isn't hard since the Church hardly puts up a fight. But anyway, they get the legislation passed. Are the bishops really supposed to spend a ton of money on legal fees, fire people from their jobs (because that is what will happen if they close emergency rooms), basically "fall on their sword" over what is probably an imaginary scenario? Prudence would say "no."

Very likely no lives will be lost from complying with this law. What has really died is a big teaching moment and witness for the truth, and frankly, those moments "pass away" every day. I would like the bishops to "fight back" against the forces of evil in our legislature, but I would also like them to be real agents for teaching the catechism at Confirmation, to scold pro-choice legislators (Hello Representatives DeLauro, Larson, Lawler), to enthusiastically encourage abstinence and natural family planning, theology of the body, real feminism, and come down hard on contraception in general. I think a reason we lost at the legislature is that most Catholics in Connecticut didn't even know the church still believes life begins at conception, or why it matters. Isn't THAT the real scandal.

The bishops created this mess for themselves, no doubt. The Conference has been without a head for their legislative arm for over a year. Months of inter-diocese nit-picking, hem-hawing, and general lackadaisical management of the process has ensured mass-confusion at the Capitol on issues that effect the laity and the church. (Did anyone notice that the position for Director of the CT Catholic Conference just finished a second round of advertising. What is going on there?) The laity remains woefully uneducated on their democratic responsibilities as Catholic citizens. Paralyzed by fear of losing their tax-exempt status, CT Catholic churches seem unable to encourage even their church-going members to vote a pro-life ticket, or to even vote at all.

But we can't just blame the bishops. Anyone who didn't at least contact their legislator about Plan B, attend Catholic Concerns Day, work on a campaign, write a letter to the editor, attend a hearing, or encourage friends and relatives to do so are also partly to blame for the passage of Plan B. Don't feel too bad though. The bishops were nowhere to be seen at the Capitol in the weeks leading up to the vote. Here is Archbishop Mansell pirogi-ing it up in Poland with the Knights of Columbus on May 5, the week Plan B hit high gear at the Capitol. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, and the stingy, resolute forces at the Capitol still would have won this year. But imagine for a moment the tall, commanding, peaceful, assuring, fatherly yet stern presence of Archbishop Mansell strolling the Capitol corridors, gently asking to speak with a legislator or 2. It would have turned many votes and minds. He could have gotten 50 people to show up with him at a press conference and maybe he wouldn't be in this "pirogi" now.

Local Reaction to Plan B sucker punch

Connecticut old timers will tell you that this isn't the first time the CT Conference of Catholic Bishops has weakened near the end of a legislative battle. With Connecticut's adoption of laws legalizing abortion and liberalizing homosexuality, the CT Conference of Catholic Bishops after initial strong and forceful resistance, has a tradition of trading their moral authority for quiet and quick compromises. You don't blame some for suggesting that the Archdiocese was blackmailed and threatened into making some of these unsavory legislative compromises. But I have my own thoughts below.

I tuned into Brad Davis this morning while brushing my teeth and nearly gagged when he claimed that any Catholic that disagreed with Archbishop Mansell is a Catholic with a "problem." Now usually this type of reflux means that I'm pregnant again, but this time it was genuine disgust. Brad Davis had a long "conversation" with Archbishop Mansell on behalf of the disgruntled parishoners at Mt. Carmel in Waterbury last week. I think the Archbishop put the local version of the "Papal Whammy" on Brad, because ever since his "conversation," Brad Davis hasn't breathed a word against the Archbishop. I even learned this morning that Brad is a "Roman Catholic," something I didn't know after listening to him all these years.

On the spiritual front, we have reports of a crucifix bleeding (what is the official Catholic term for this?) at a parish in northern Connecticut. I am not at liberty to give more details, but at least one witness has "connected the dots" to the Archbishop. In particular, the Archbishop is scheduled to bless their new sanctuary soon, and if icons start weeping across Connecticut when the Archbishop shows, well . . . you heard it here first.

The level of "sucker punch" is strong with area Catholics, of course. But even local legislators are expressing their bewilderment over the Conference's behavior. Mark Pazniokas of the Hartford Courant had a brief report in CAUCUS - Politics from CT to DC, and reports that Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr. stated:

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.

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.

Talk about egg on your face, the Family Institute of Connecticut (an ecumenical, non-partisan organization) was searching for a person with whom they could file a suit against the State to stop Plan B. Who knows whether they will proceed. Getting out there to fight the culture wars can leave you a little lonely. This topic is also burning up the Catholic blogosphere. For other discussions about the Conference's turnabout on Plan B, you can see: American Papist Curt Jester Jimmy Akin (Part 1 and Part 2) and Diogenes.

Nationally, Deal Hudson, formerly of Crisis Magazine, is urging Catholics to contact the CT Catholic Conference and adds in his article on CatholicInsider.com:

When official institutions of the Catholic Church make these kinds of decisions, the rest of us end up looking, well, silly.

My husband reminds me that it's the legislation, not the bishops, that require us to drop the ovulation test. So, it's not like the bishops thought this up on their own 2 days ago. It came from the anti-Catholics at the legislature, whose heads nearly popped when they found out the hospitals were administering ovulation tests! But, the whole hub-bub about ovulation all comes from the Church. It was part of their initial, well-thought protocols. The test, though imperfect, was there to err on the side of life.

I just have to believe that when presented with a what could be considered a reasonable "way out" by their expensive attorneys, the loss of untold funds from the state, and even more money about to be spent on a possibly fruitless lawsuit, the bishops eyes glazed over, they started mumbling to themselves about monstrance polish, gave a slow head-nod to their fancy attorneys and set into motion their plans for retreat.

Outrage and Shame over Plan B in Connecticut

I have a set of grandparents who, back-in-the-day, used to be quite sharp and acerbic, they spoke the truth without regard to noses bent or feelings hurt (especially when it came to mine). But now, when they hear disagreement, they get a far-away look and glassy-eyed, they stare at the floor, shrug their shoulders and mumble something about diabetic shoes. They forget their manners and pretend you were not talking. They change the subject and undermine or even contradict previously held truths. Their former zeal for taking-down falsehoods now lost in a fog of daily talk-shows and newspaper gossip columns. It's like they have retired their minds.

The same "retirement of mind" appears to have happened to our Connecticut bishops. No longer willing to call Plan B an abortifacient (as, until very recently, even Plan B's website self-referred to as such), they issued a collective "far-away look" Thursday and mumbled at least 3 times that they are actually unsure what Plan B does. Let me refresh their memories from their own Connecticut Conference of Catholic Bishop's Q&A still, temporarily I presume, located on their website:

7) Connecticut�s Catholic hospitals have said that Plan B can sometimes cause an abortion. Is this correct?

The primary mechanism of Plan B is to prevent ovulation, and therefore conception.

The secondary mechanism of Plan B is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, which is abortion. This is confirmed on the manufacturer's web site that says, Plan B may also work by preventing it (the fertilized egg) from attaching to the uterus (womb).

8) Is it a true statement to say that forcing Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B under all cases is equivalent to forcing Catholic hospitals to perform an abortion?

Yes.

When Plan B cannot act as a contraceptive, it can only act to cause an abortion. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B in these situations forces the hospitals to perform abortions.

Well, well. I don't know how they could have been more acerbic or truthful there. Nothing like plain-talkin to drive home a point. Now for the glassy-eyes from yesterday's press release . . .

The administration of Plan B pills in this instance cannot be judged to be the commission of an abortion because of such doubt about how Plan B pills and similar drugs work and because of the current impossibility of knowing from the ovulation test whether a new life is present. To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.

Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape, . . . .

OK, now that I am sitting on my chair again, can we just address the little statement "because of the current impossibility of knowing . . . whether a new life is present." How many times have you sat in a college dorm, stood by the company water cooler, eaten at the family dinner table and had that nugget of wisdom spat at you. . . "Well, nobody knows if it's really a life, so abortion isn't killing." That line is so, well, 1980s. If the bishops are going to start spewing pro-choice propaganda, they should at least bring their arguments into the current century and claim while a fertilized egg may be alive, it isn't a person.

Next. Who was the lucky person at the CT Conference that had the task of so blatantly backtracking from the Bishop's noble and forceful original position? I hope it wasn't Barry Feldman, that poor guy looks like he is about to get a case of the vapors every time I see him on TV.

Besides arguing that they should err on the side of destroying life, the Bishops make a crucial blunder by suggesting they have no moral obligation to provide an ovulation test. How queer, I thought the debate was about abortion, not ovulation tests. What the bishops have done, perhaps unknowingly, is misdirect the focus of the debate to ovulation tests and create an effective diversion. It is a cheap debating trick used by every high school debate team.

"To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act" they state. What about administering Plan B without a pregnancy test? Would that be "intrinsically evil"? I think so. And to those people (i.e. Catholics) who equate the soul of a fertilized egg with the soul of a gestating baby, what difference should there be? Both deserve a test before being subjected to a deadly drug. And suppose there was no accurate test? Then we must err on the side of life and not administer the deadly drug at all. The Bishops have made a heart-sickening slight of hand. Claiming if they avert their eyes, then no evil is taking place.

The alternative to testing, isn't administering Plan B blindfolded, it is to not administer Plan B at all. Avoiding culpability because they didn't "know" or refused to "know" smacks me of moral relativism.

I also find their choice of the word "intrinsic" interesting. Intrinsic, is defined, in part, as "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing". If something is "intrinsically evil", it is evil without regard to knowledge or purpose. Causing abortions IS intrinsically evil even if you don't know for sure you did it. Knowledge is irrelevant. I think the word the bishops, or their lowly attorney, was actually searching for was "intentional". Administering Plan B without an ovulation test could possibly not be "intentionally evil", but judgment will be deferred on that question to a later day and a much higher Judge.

I have more to say on this topic, but have to defer completion till tomorrow. . .

Somebody feed the Sheep

We have this running joke in our family that priests and bishops save their fanciest hats for when they are meeting behind closed doors. Forget witnessing marriages or administering first Holy Communion, if you want to see fancy duds, watch EWTN when the US Conference of Catholic Bishops meets. Collegiality is the rule among the bishops. I suppose it helps to grease the wheels of progress among all the different strong personalities at these meetings. But, from what I can tell (and I am just a little catholic home-schooling mom from CT), collegiality just cost us Plan B in the legislature this session.

When asked why they voted for Plan B this session, 8 out of 10 legislators* responded, in some form or another, that the Catholic bishops were unsure of what their position was, so they just voted for it. The bishops alternately said a compromise was feasible (roll the tapes of Archbishop Mansell at Catholic Concerns Day), or they were waiting for an expert ethics opinion (see Haas OpEd in Courant), or, to top all others, that it was a matter of "faith" among the different bishops (see below). Sigh.

I hate to criticize Archbishop Mansell - he is a holy man with an awesome memory - but, what happened with Plan B this session? Only now are we starting to see a little life in the Archdiocese and Connecticut, organized by the faithful flock. And, honestly, that horse has left the barn. I am struck by the statements made by the spokesperson for the Connecticut Catholic Hospital Association, Barry Feldman:

"You're talking about religious beliefs and not facts. The bishops of New York have religious beliefs that they interpret in one way, and the bishops in Connecticut view the moral analysis differently,"

HeSaid already commented on this in an earlier post. But, what is going on here? Do the remarks, and the lack of perceptible action by our Archbishop, come down to the Connecticut Conference of Catholic Bishops being more concerned about collegiality among their fellow bishops than they are about fighting hard about Plan B here in Connecticut? I think so.

How is that, you ask? Only 1 state didn't fight Plan B because they determined it wasn't abortion. Unwilling to criticize Cardinal Egan of New York for their decision not to fight a Plan B bill, our bishops got all weak-kneed up at the Capitol. Unable to state clearly that Plan B was against Catholic teaching, lest they offend their NY brethren, they sunk into a kind of Catholic relativism, simply saying that it was a matter of "faith" and interpretation. Good grief, did they want the legislature to win? In the meantime, we the sheep are left to defend the Church ourselves in hand-to-hand water cooler combat. Sure, our bishops will file a lawsuit and spend $65 to $100 thousand of our weekly contributions fighting this battle in court. But, why not spend a little of your own "Archbishop Capital" getting dirty at the Capitol fighting for your sheep. Submit OpEds. Have letters read from the pulpit. Organize rallies! This isn't only about saving lives, its about defending our faith, making this a teaching moment, and giving your best to your flock.

I know the Archbishop is doing a lot behind the scenes - working with lobbyists, making phone calls, praying - but a public education campaign, that is sure of it's message and aimed at the flock, is desperately needed.


*as assertained by me reading the morning papers.

Why Did State Senate "Breach the Wall"?

In the wake of this week's 32-3 state Senate vote forcing Catholic hospitals to facilitate chemical abortions on its premises, the CT Catholic Conference has e-mailed an alert on the legislature's "breaching the wall" between church and state. We're not crazy about the "wall" metaphor, which is not in the Constitution and is frequently put in the service of all manner of secularist mischief. But for once, it seems apt. Archbishop Mansell and Bishop Lori get to the heart of the issue in their letter to the legislature:

"The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut are responsible for establishing and
determining what moral guidelines Catholic institutions should follow; not the
ConnecticutGeneral Assembly."

So why did the Senate breach the wall? Because of the more permissive policies of the dioceses in our neighboring states:

Waterbury Sen. Sam S.F. Caligiuri, R-16th District, said the compromises
reached in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota swayed his vote.

"Unfortunately, the Catholic conference in Connecticut hasn't reached that
conclusion. It remains to be seen whether it will. But because of that, it has
become clear to me that we aren't talking about Catholic teaching as an
institution, but rather a conflict between a compelling state interest and the
opinion of some Catholics in Connecticut about what Catholic teaching ought to
be providing for," he said.

Even with there being a different Catholic hospital policy elsewhere, surely the teaching authority of the Catholic bishops of Connecticut carries more weight than a mere "opinion of some Catholics in Connecticut about what Catholic teaching ought to be"? From whom did Caligiuri get such a subjective view of the Bishops' authority?

Oops. Looks like he may have got it from the Church's own point man on Plan B, St. Francis Hospital general counsel Barry Feldman:

Feldman also responded to the arguments that Catholic bishops in New York,
New Jersey and Minnesota agreed to compromises on emergency contraception for
rape victims.

"You're talking about religious beliefs and not facts. The bishops of New
York have religious beliefs that they interpret in one way, and the bishops in
Connecticut view the moral analysis differently," he said.

"Religious beliefs and not facts"? What the--? He also gave this quote to another paper:

A spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Conference, Barry Feldman, said
the church’s bishops in this state "see things differently" concerning this
issue from their counterparts in those other states. He said that, because the
pope has not taken a position on this issue, bishops in different states are
able to decide what position to take for their dioceses.

"When it comes to religious beliefs and moral values, no position is
right or wrong," said Feldman. (emphasis added)

The charitable assumption here is that the papers are either misquoting Feldman or taking him out of context. But given the difficult position neighboring dioceses have put our state's Bishops in, public statements that are or can be made to sound like relativism ought to be avoided. At least more than the otherwise-odius "wall of separation."

First, do no harm

I don't think that that's what Catholic healthcare should be about.
Jon O'Brien, President
Catholics for a Free Choice

That was the new president of "Catholics" for a Free Choice on March 8, 2007 with Colin & Friends complaining about the Connecticut Bishops' decision to require a negative ovulation test before providing an abortafacient to rape victims in CT Catholic hospitals. Because . . . didn't you know, Catholic health care should be about convenience not "doing no harm."

Plan A - Come to Catholic Concerns Day, March 22

I plan on attending this year's Catholic Concerns Day on March 22 with my family. We have attended in the past and it is a family-friendly and effective way to show our strength on many issues important to Catholics in Connecticut. High on the Connecticut Catholic Conference's list of agenda items this year is opposition to the so-called "Plan B" (rather Orwellian, don't you think) or Emergency Contraception proposal. Plainly referred to as an anti-catholic ruse on their website, The Connecticut Catholic Conference, under the leadership of Deacon David Reynolds and our Connecticut Bishops, has taken a strong stance against this legislation. Don't think it has been easy either. Other states, like New York and New Jersey, don't seem to have the same policy as our Archdiocese - and they are highlighted at the legislature as good citizens.

I'm sorry though, that we have to squeeze the arguments against "Plan B" into the "religious freedom box". To me, that should be our "Plan B". Plan A should be for us to boldly share with the rest of Connecticut that this is abortion, and abortion is wrong because it kills someone. I even wondered, for a moment, if the Catholic hospitals should be offering any pre-conception "contraceptive" (their own words) to fertile women (which they do if the woman has not ovulated). Isn't that in God's hands? But, the Catholic Church does not insist that women get pregnant. Just that they be open to new life. And, for the poor woman who has been sexually abused, we can all understand that she may not be open to conceiving a new life - even if thoughtfully considered - under those horrible circumstances.

Anyway, back to the "religious freedom box". I am sad that we have to retreat each session to making arguments to only protect our right to privately practice our religion. I wish we could use our leverage to actually educate the public about the church and its positions. I.E., instead of asserting our right not to use contraception because our pope said so, how about asserting our right not to kill a person, because killing people is wrong.