no explicit teaching

By Diogenes (articles ) | Oct 05, 2007

In his effort to explain the Connecticut bishops' decision on use of Plan B at Catholic hospitals, Bishop Lori points out-- in boldface, no less:

Indeed, the Church does not teach that it is intrinsically evil to administer Plan B without first giving an ovulation test or that those who do so are committing an abortion.

So I've been thinking about that, sitting here at the local watering hole, wondering whether I should have another martini.

There are ethicists who would look at my slightly glazed eyes, take note of my tendency to sing short snatches from Chantilly Lace, and conclude that I've had enough. Others, however, would observe that I can still walk a straight line and recite the alphabet backward, and I'm not driving tonight. Tony, my bartender and personal moral theologian, tells me that I "still look OK," and concludes it's a question of prudential judgment.

And y'know what? The Church does not teach that it is intrinsically evil to order a martini at 6:44 on a Tuesday evening at the Elm Street Tavern without first taking a breathalyzer test or that those who do so are guilty of drunkenness. Indeed.

Tony! Do it again, pleashe!

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

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!

Show 10 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Oct. 07, 2007 9:49 PM ET USA

    Voxfem, reason is simple why Conn. Legislators “feel the need” w/abortifaciency in dispute, their having learned about pliable MORAL CERTITUDE: different doctors can have same data yet conclude oppositely on what to do after giving an ovulation test. The Peoria protocol was extensive & some hospitals not equipped to get data “stat” at 3 AM when ANXIOUS victim arrives. The STATE argument: traumatized victim’s “rights” must NOT depend on “wrong doctor” on scene or “right equip.” not available.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 06, 2007 7:54 AM ET USA

    The Knoghts do a lot of good things. However, they have a rule that gets them into trouble time after time: never contradict a priest, always defend him. This rule seems to be a good one until applied to criminal priests or amoral, in-name-only Catholic clergy (even some bishops?). The Knights are better businessmen than theologians.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 05, 2007 9:44 PM ET USA

    By that standard, the Magisterium has never taught that sex with a vacuum cleaner is inherently evil if you use the power brush attachment.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 05, 2007 7:06 PM ET USA

    I'm confused. It's a matter of how much testing is appropriate?! If there is ANY chance that it could kill a child, no testing is too much to prevent that. If there's no chance of it acting as an abortifacient, then why do Conn. legislators feel they need a law against ovulation tests? "Reluctant compliance" is not the "only viable option". Asking for supernatural courage, gift of the Holy Spirit, to stand up to evil and choose good is another option. Blessed Mother, pray for our bishops.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 05, 2007 5:38 PM ET USA

    Bishop Lori is the chaplain of the Knights of Columbus. KC is #1 pro-life. Will they repudiate what he has said here?

  • Posted by: - Oct. 05, 2007 4:32 PM ET USA

    The not-so-good Bishop might want read what the Vatican (The Pontifical Academy for Life) has said about the morning-after pill at maybe I misunderstood what they had to say.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 05, 2007 1:36 PM ET USA

    I wonder if the bishops will give their pharmacists a conscience clause not to dispense unless proper testing has occurred. Seems a reasonable solution to the acquiescence of the bishops to a secularist mandate without any resistence-perhaps those with a more delicate conscience might offer some. Remember-almost all bishops in England had no problem taking the Oath of Supremacy, on the theory that it was "explicit Church teaching".

  • Posted by: - Oct. 05, 2007 12:40 PM ET USA

    Does Bishop Lori mean that there is nothing in "writing" that says it's intrinsically evil. Because I think it's pretty easy to intuit from Church teachings that it IS intrinsically evil to take risks that may kill a human being when you have the means to avoid those risks. Isn't that the point of the infamous Catholic teachings on safe driving?

  • Posted by: - Oct. 05, 2007 12:22 PM ET USA

    If I follow, the bishops of CT are in favor of FORCING the bartender to give you another drink if you ask for it, even though there's a substantial probability that you're impaired, and even though the bar's owner is adamantly opposed to inebriation. Do you suppose they are willing to indemnify the owner against the foreseeable litigation? I wonder if the good bishops would also be in favor of rectories being forced to sell ammunition to angry gun owners.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 05, 2007 11:28 AM ET USA

    I drink to that! (great analogy which doesn't limp too quickly...)