nothing more to say
With the abortifacient "emergency contraceptive" pill now available over-the-counter, the Boston Herald finds local Planned Parenthood officials chalking up another political victory. But not everyone is pleased:
Edward F. Saunders Jr., executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts, said: “The position of the bishops all along has been that they’re opposed to it. I don’t think there’s anything more that needs to be said.”
Now notice the argument advanced by the spokesman for the Massachusetts bishops-- perhaps the only argument that Herald readers will ever encounter.
- He does not point out that the "emergency contraceptive" pill usually works by causing an early abortion.
- He does not point out that pharmacists may be forced to violate their consciences or lose their positions, in a clear violation of religious freedom.
- He does not point out that use of the drug may entail medical risks for women.
In short the chief lobbyist for the Church doesn't make any logical argument against the "Plan B" pills-- just an appeal to the authority of the bishops. They're against it. No need to explain. And you wonder why the Church keeps losing political ground in Massachusetts?
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our year-end goal ($161,864 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Nov. 16, 2006 5:00 PM ET USA
Well, as I said, Roger I could be wrong. I guess Principle showed me that I am, which is something I truly regret. Not that I'm wrong, but that Mr. Saunders would contribute to Kennedy's campaign.
Posted by: principle not pragmatism -
Nov. 16, 2006 11:44 AM ET USA
When Bishop Sean appointed Saunders, it became well known to those interested that he had given donations to pro-abort politicians like our distinguished Sen. Kennedy.
Posted by: Charlie887 -
Nov. 15, 2006 11:56 PM ET USA
Don't blame Saunders for not being specific. Governor Romney vetoed the bill but the Massachusetts bishops decided not to try to gather enough votes to sustain the veto, despite the fact that about 70 percent of the Legislature is Catholic. If the bishops had serious reasons to oppose the bill, they should have stated them at the time the veto override vote came up. As almost nothing was said at the time, Saunders is only being prudent in not putting words in his bosses' mouths.
Posted by: Pete133 -
Nov. 15, 2006 9:50 PM ET USA
"And you wonder why the Church keeps losing political ground in Massachusetts?" Is there ANY political ground left to be lost by the Church in Massachusetts?
Posted by: -
Nov. 15, 2006 8:52 PM ET USA
Yes pinecone..... I am sure you are right - I withdraw my accusation...oh wait a second I just noticed that he is the Executive Director of the MASSACHUSETTS Catholic Confernce. In that case, i withdraw my withdrawal
Posted by: -
Nov. 15, 2006 7:32 PM ET USA
Sorry, Roger, but from the best of my knowledge -- and I could be wrong, but I don't believe I am -- this is one Conference director who IS faithful to the Magisterium. I think the Church would have us presume such a person's fidelity rather than assume he isn't faithful.
Posted by: -
Nov. 15, 2006 5:04 PM ET USA
I would guess that he made an argument from authority because it is the only honest one he can make...since like most Catholics he doesnt agree with the church's teaching about contraception. If you dont believe me, ask any faithful priest what happens to him if he preaches in favor of Humanae Vitae - blood on the church steps for sure!
Posted by: JW -
Nov. 15, 2006 2:10 PM ET USA
We don't know the context of that quotation. Perhaps he'd been discussing it with the reporter ad nauseum and that was said in frustration. Without a transcript of the entire interview, we have no sense of the context and I think it is imprudent to judge this man's skills in defending our moral positions based on one quotation in a secular paper.
Posted by: Leo XIII727 -
Nov. 15, 2006 11:09 AM ET USA
Perhaps the orthodox argument against contraception has been damned by faint praise. But at least the chief lobbyist expressed some opposition. We should be thankful for small things.
Posted by: Sir William -
Nov. 15, 2006 10:53 AM ET USA
One more reason our bishops keep looking more like hirelings than shepherds.