In The Precarious Chess Game Of Religious Liberty, Were Connecticut Catholics Rooked By Our Bishops? by Doug Wrenn

In The Precarious Chess Game Of Religious Liberty, Were Connecticut Catholics Rooked By Our Bishops?

By Doug Wrenn

October 04, 2007

The aftershocks are still being felt among Connecticut's reeling Catholics from the sudden and shocking revelation by the state's bishops this past week that they will not challenge the new law mandating Catholic hospitals to administer the Plan B, or so-called "morning after" pill to female rape victims. The law became effective on October 1st, just days after the bishops backed off. I am not making any formal accusations, however, while I struggle to maintain an open mind, I still smell a rat in the chancellery.

The crux of the debate is whether Plan B acts as contraception or as an abortifacient. In a column published in the May, 2007 issue of The Catholic Transcript, the journal of record for the Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford, Archbishop Henry Mansell stated that traditional Catholic moral teaching allows emergency contraception, but not abortion for a rape victim. He further stated, "The bill as it is currently proposed would demand that our four Catholic hospitals in Connecticut provide for an abortion" (emphasis added).

Archbishop Mansell expounded that Plan B could be administered if the patient is not ovulating or is not pregnant, but it could not be administered if she is ovulating because the pill can act as an "abortifacient" by preventing the fertilized ovum from adhering to the uterine wall.

In his column he later confirmed that statement by saying, "We have consulted with a number of Catholic ethicists in various parts of the United States on these issues, and they are in complete agreement with the positions we are articulating." He concluded the article by saying that our "freedom to exercise religious principles is very much at stake." He also encouraged his flock to "let your voice be heard." Sounds OK to me so far. Now, let's fast forward to the present.

In a statement currently posted on the Hartford Archdiocesan web site, www.archdioceseofhartford.org, the bishops are now settling with just a pregnancy test being done, and not an ovulation test before administering the pill, as they claim, "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 the Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act."

Here lies the rub. First of all, how did the bishops go from such concrete and confident certainty, with the backing of "Catholic ethicists from various parts of the United States" in May to suddenly, now in September/October, not knowing how the pills work and the impossibility of determining whether or not "life" (defined in the Catholic faith as upon conception, or fertilization) is present from ovulation? What changed so drastically in 4-5 months?

By Archbishops Mansell's own written words, Plan B can prevent ovulation and it can also prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum onto the uterine wall. Therefore, if an ovulation test presumably only determines ovulation of the eggs, and not necessarily fertilization of the eggs, then the possibility does exist that abortion can (conveniently) unknowingly occur by the patient taking the pill. Therefore, if positive test results of ovulation, with or without pregnancy are received, then how exactly is the administering of the Plan B pill not "intrinsically evil" by Church standards?

According to the statement on the archdiocesan web site, the bishops are also basing their decision on the fact that "the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter." Again, what about the previous claim about "complete agreement " with "a number of Catholic ethicists in various parts of the United States"? OK, so which is it? And if there is any doubt, why not play it safe and choose the side of the issue that protects human life, in accordance with the pro-life tenets of the Church?

In an even more convoluted and disturbing section of the statement, the bishops state, "The Bishops and other Catholic healthcare leaders believe that this law is seriously flawed, but not sufficiently to bar compliance with it at the present time. We continue to believe this law should be changed." OK, so again, which is it? Are you for or against this law? I find this latest statement by the bishops "seriously flawed." They are exhibiting a delicate balancing act on the fence so extraordinary that it could only be duplicated by circus high-wire tightrope walkers or the most seasoned of conniving politicians.

First of all, some healthcare leaders, Catholic or otherwise, are uneasy about the Plan B pill because of some of the detrimental side effects that have been reported from its usage. That is a moral component for the bishops to consider as well. What exactly about this law do the bishops find does allow compliance? And, why is that, given the fact that they hypocritically said that they believe the law to be "seriously flawed" and that it should still be changed, and if so, how? The statements made by the bishops are as full of holes and stark contradictions as they are of ambiguous double-talk. Overall, their so-called response and their very unsettling so-called rationale are at the present time completely unacceptable. I now have the same kind of ill feeling that I had when President Bush declared campaign finance reform "unconstitutional," and then signed the bill into law immediately afterward. Frankly, I expected a much higher standard from high-ranking clergy members of my Church than a politician. Shame on me for my overly idealistic naivety.

Covering their tracks with a less than clever out-clause, the bishops conclude the statement by saying that if Plan B pills do prove to produce chemical abortions, then the "matter would have to be re-opened." That statement would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically sad. Just how do the bishops expect to acquire such information? Do they believe a recipient of a Plan B produced abortion will spontaneously and voluntarily come ring their doorbell with the facts neatly laid out on a silver platter for their perusal?

We've come a long way since the threat of a lawsuit. The bishops have disputed that claim as well, saying they only expressed the possibility of considering a lawsuit. Forgive me for again comparing religion to politics, but the analogy is right in my face. Proponents of our current war in Iraq cite one reason we should not withdraw is because doing so will endanger both the US and our allies in the future, as the US would be showing public weakness to its ever-watchful enemies by capitulating. In a radically liberal, secularist state, openly hostile to the Catholic faith, such as Connecticut, isn't the future of religious liberty for Catholics now that much further endangered by this capitulation (be it real or perceived) of our bishops, who just a few months ago spoke so confidently, brazenly and defiantly on this subject? What will be forced upon our hospitals next; abortion, euthanasia? Where does it end, or does it ever end? All political issues evolve incrementally; none occur overnight. As the riddle goes, "How do you eat an elephant?" Answer: " One bite at a time." So it will now continue to be with the already endangered religious liberties of Catholics, as it appears our clergy leaders have run out of either motivation and/or backbone for whatever reason or excuse to keep up the good fight. Meanwhile, many daunting questions remain unanswered and the collaborated silence, we the endangered Catholic faithful now hear from our bishops, now a week alter after their first shocking announcement is so crushing that it almost physically hurts us. Apparently, our bishops have proclaimed their final word on this contentious subject and have quickly fled back to the serenity of protective exile in their respective cloistered chancelleries. Sorry, bishops, that just isn't good enough, and this unsettled, unsatisfied and very obstinate Catholic is still here, waiting for what famous radio commentator Paul Harvey would appropriately call, "the rest of the story"! How about it, Archbishop Mansell? What about our "freedom to exercise our religious principles," as you previously proclaimed? You also said for us to let our voices be heard. Well, here I am, and I'm asking, but it seems like nobody is really answering. To sum all my concerns into one succinct word for you, it would be, "Why?"

There is much more at stake here than just the Plan B controversy. Our apparent and unnecessary loss in this heated battle is but only one component of a much larger scale problematic trend and downward slide within and of the Catholic Church. Even above and beyond the covered up homosexual sex scandals that occurred between priest and teenage boys, fringe elements of the Church have ordained women, seminaries have been overtaken by radical subversives and gays, the very traditional and significantly symbolic architecture of our churches has been willfully bastardized, altar rails are gone, folk music has been introduced, practically no reverence is shown for the Holy Eucharist, the few congregants who now regularly attend mass, if at all, are predominantly dressed like utter slobs and conspicuously ungroomed, and their apathetic and disrespectful behavior and demeanor speak volumes of the reasons for their inexcusable lack of dress and hygiene. Priests are now afraid to offend anyone, so instead of preaching what people need to hear about, such as sin, Heaven and Hell, and uncomfortable but very necessary modern subjects like abortion, fidelity, chastity before marriage, modesty, humility, commitment, natural family planning, homosexuality, disciplining children, etc., priests now instead engage the prickly congregation in softer, more tolerant subjects of worthless fluff, while incorporating a stand up comedian act to desperately keep their fleeting focus. In some cases, pitches for more money actually substitute for given homilies, a direct violation of Canon Law. Many of our priests of today seem more obsessed with collecting more money and less willing to save more souls. Tabernacles have been moved aside, hours of adoration are reduced if not eliminated, and the body of Christ in some churches is now absent from the cross, and where it does remain on the cross, the priest keeps his back to it during the mass. Statues of saints are becoming as prevalent as dinosaurs. Many priests are now ambivalent to many rules and traditions of the Church and extend themselves to ultimate leniency to accommodate lazy, cafeteria Catholics. Today, the false theme seems to be, "Do whatever you want; don't worry, it's OK, God loves you so nothing will happen to you." Many Catholics are now grossly uniformed in their basic catechism, holy days of obligation, knowledge and understanding of the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, and basic prayer, including the very powerful Rosary, in part because such subjects are seldom if ever invoked from the altar any more. Many of our priests now prefer to be liked, rather than heard. Choirs and organists now receive applause, as if they are playing in concert instead of in church, thereby not complimenting the presence of God, as they are intended to do, but rather, distract from the presence of God. Meanwhile, the bishops choose to look the other way as this outright heresy continues on their watch from their subordinates and their flock. Apparently the bishops still have not learned a lesson about their habitual and abject malfeasance of winking and nodding and the fallacy of perceived plausible deniability since the tumultuous outbreak of the sex scandals. And still they pompously wonder why the Church has not recovered its credibility and healed its wounds since that time.

For all this weak capitulation and liberal upheaval by the inept and /or corrupted Church clergy, only a fraction of men and women now seek vocations as compared to decades past, thus increasing the clergy shortage throughout the country. On the other side of the altar, the pews are now only filled by an average of 25% of Catholics, and confessions, which once traditionally meant waiting in line, are almost unheard of now among many of the flock. Regular scheduled times offered for confessions now typically range from 15 minutes to an hour, and in such time, maybe one or two people will actually show up to reconcile themselves with God and cleanse their mortal souls in preparation and hope for eternal salvation. Many Catholics now even doubt the existence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, as well as any real belief in Heaven and Hell. Our Church, and its members, both clergy and lay members alike, are going to Hell as quickly and seemingly zealously as the rest of our grossly deteriorated culture. There once was a time, not all that long ago, when the Church stood above all that apathy and evil, like a mountain peak over a plain. Now, the "salt" of the earth has lost most of its flavor and has instead chosen to assimilate more with this fleeting world then the eternal one promised us through salvation. It's all part of the same tragic pattern. Indeed, our bishops have much to explain, and their sudden and mysterious reversal on the Plan B debate is only the very tip of a mammoth iceberg.

"…Before, the cup was filling up. Now it is flowing over. Many cardinals, many bishops and many priests are on the road to perdition and are taking many souls with them…."

(Taken from the "last message" of St. Mary, Our Blessed Mother, to the children of Garabandal, Spain in the apparition of June 18, 1965.)

We, the still perplexed, disturbed and increasingly vulnerable Catholics of Connecticut are the very least to whom our bishops may have to answer.

Ironically, as I write this column, today is October 2nd. It was on this very day in 1881, that Connecticut's own native son, the very devout priest who many believe is soon destined for sainthood, Father Michael J. McGivney formed the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic men's fraternal organization, which the Church calls its "strong right arm," originally founded to protect impoverished widows and orphans. Today, more than ever, we struggling Catholics, both lay and clergy members alike, desperately need, and should passionately seek Father McGivney's intercession.

Doug Wrenn