Why the Criticism? German Bishops Follow US Bishops’ Morning-After Pill Protocol
I suppose I take a different approach than many e-journalists when I comment on the decisions of priests, bishops, and cardinals. I cannot bring myself to criticize their decisions because 1) it seems backwards to mistrust a man who authoritatively speaks in the name of Christ, and 2) as a lay person, I realize that I have much to learn from them and that they are also interested in learning from lay people’s experiences. Lumen Gentium explains that if a bishop is “teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff,” he is “to be respected as a witness to divine and Catholic truth.” The bishop speaks in the name of Christ, and in matters of faith and morals we are to accept his teaching and “adhere to it with a religious assent.”
So when I heard about the decision of the German bishops to allow Catholic hospitals to use the morning-after pill or other contraception in rape cases, I was concerned about communication, but not critical of the decision. This is an opportunity for clearer communication, not crisis-style panic, finger-pointing, and insinuating that our bishops are ignorant. We have enough of that in the misguided secular media already.
Read the rest at Catholic Exchange, and let me know your thoughts. The issue of the morning-after pill needs more discussion.
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (11)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Why the Criticism? German Bishops Follow US Bishops’ Morning-After Pill Protocol | CATHOLIC FEAST | March 8, 2013
- Pro-life blog buzz 3-15-13 | March 15, 2013
Stacy, last year this (below) was done with the help of the Archdiocese of San Francisco in an attempt to correct ethical problems that have crept into this system and diluted Catholic values. Part of the problem I see is that bishops do not have direct administrative control over these organizations. When Religious Orders run these systems or universities (as in the case of Notre Dame), the local bishop can intercede very little. The church has grown a complex global structure over the centuries that has faced infiltration of outside values intensely since the social calamity of the 1960s.
There is talk of the need to reorganize the Roman Curia now in Rome during the new popes election process. Also, it seems that the main issues facing the Church now are administrative and the “New Evangelization” and not doctrinal. I do not envy any bishop with the problems he has to face in modern America and the West.
“San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West, the nation’s fifth-largest health care system, said Jan. 23it is changing its name to Dignity Health as part of a restructuring ……..
As Catholic Healthcare West grew, merging with non-Catholic community hospitals, questions arose about now to manage a non-Catholic entity with a Catholic entity….
Dignity Health said that the name change is directly related to the governance restructure, adding that both the restructure and the new name give potential partners confidence that Catholic hospitals will follow the ethical and religious directives for Catholic healthcare promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops while non-Catholic hospitals will follow what is called Dignity Health’s statement of common values.”
http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/news/?search=hospital ethics&C=766&I=2863
http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/news/?search=hospital ethics&C=766&I=2861
That has happened all over New England. Catholic seem like the strangers in Catholic hospitals.
I was under the impression that only IUDs had any effect as post-fertilization birth-control, and that “the morning after pill” (note: not RU486) could not prevent pregnancies post-fertilization.
The birth control pill and the morning-after pill both alter the endometrium so that implantation can be prohibited, causing a chemically induced abortion.
RU-486 will kill an already implanted embryo.
Stacy,
What I’ve been reading is that the effects on the endometrium aren’t enough to prohibit implantation, and speaking to a close friend that’s a fertilization specialist confirms this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception (See: Mechanism of action)
There’s been a long debate about that because that makes all the difference in MAP being a contraceptive vs. an abortifacient.
A little background…
The effectiveness is generally given to be around 75-89%. Yet study after study shows that ovulation is prevented in only about half the women. What else accounts for the reduction in pregnancies?
Inhibition of implantation.
This is one of the landmark studies often cited to claim that MAPs inhibit or delay ovulation.
Ling WY, Robichaud A, Zayid I, et al. Mode of action of DL-norgestrel and ethinyl estradiol combination in postcoital contraception. Fertil Steril. 1979;32:297–302.
For instance:
http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Clinical-Proceedings/EC/MOA
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/423473_2
Yet this is what the actual study reports:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/488410
5 of 9 women in that study ovulated after taking the MAP. People in support of MAP often say that it works by preventing ovulation, but that isn’t the full picture. You can’t change just that thing (ovulation) without affecting other things as well (the endometrium). They are all affected by hormones.
Stacy, that’s a study of 12 women in 1979. It also doesn’t seem to address the mechanism of action related to cervical mucus. I’m talking about the best current evidence which states the changes in the endometrium aren’t enough to prevent implantation (see previous link).
I was just giving you an example of why what you read may not be consistent with what the studies found. Such studies typically involve small numbers of test subjects because of the nature of the testing.
The bishops have said that a drug that prevents ovulation for a rape victim is licit, no moral objection to preventing a pregnancy in that case, some even say “all possible action” must be taken to prevent it. No action, however, can be taken to end a life already begun in the womb.
Most evidence says MAPs (ECPS) work, in part, by preventing implantation. There is no conclusive evidence that MAPs never interfere with a life already begun.
The 2011 link from the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals on the mechanism of action says:
On this issue, we need to be sure, not “perhaps”. Even in the Wiki, though the language seems to be sure, the references don’t offer that level of certainty.
Don’t forget this:
The effectiveness is generally given to be around 75-89%. Yet study after study shows that ovulation is prevented in only about half the women. What else accounts for the reduction in pregnancies?