![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Bp. Morlino still stepping up to the plate
You might remember my entries about Bp. Robert Morlino of Madison, about how he changed his mind after Summorum Pontificum, about how he celebrated a Pontifical Mass recently.
Now I read in a CNA story (my emphases):
Madison, WI, Dec 21, 2007 / 01:34 pm (CNA).- Bishop Robert C. Morlino of the Diocese of Madison has urged opposition to a state bill that would mandate hospitals, including Catholic ones, to administer the morning after pill, “emergency contraception,” upon request to women who have been raped.
In the newspaper for the Diocese of Madison, Bishop Morlino explained to readers that the bill did not protect the consciences of institutions or individuals who want to protect both women who have been raped and any babies possibly conceived in that rape.
“Women who have suffered the tragedy of rape need to be protected, but if a pre-born child has been already conceived, the future of that child also requires our protection,” he said.
Bishop Morlino expanded on his concerns in a letter to the members of the Wisconsin Legislature. He insisted that the safety, inherent dignity, and God-given rights of women were deeply important.
In fact, the bishop said that Catholic hospitals have always provided emergency contraception “when this was appropriate.” He said that such treatment was appropriate when every effort had been made to ensure the drug would not prevent implantation of a newly conceived human being. In cases where implantation was prevented, he explained, “this would amount to an abortion.”
The bishop said this was not a distinctively Catholic issue, “but a matter of biology and human rights.”
Bishop Morlino distanced himself from the earlier stance of the Wisconsin Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had adopted a neutral position towards the bill. He said the position of neutrality did not have its desired effect, and inadvertently caused scandal among Catholics who began to believe the bishops were becoming less fervently pro-life. Bishop Morlino also said Bishop Jerome Listecki of the Diocese of LaCrosse was supporting him in his new approach against the legislation.
In his letter to the legislature Bishop Morlino said he was “firmly convinced” that conscience exemptions to the bill were threatened. He also questioned the motives of some supporters of the bill, saying, “It is clear that Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and their colleagues are more interested in promoting a state-supported, contraceptive ideology than they are in simply, reasonably, protecting women.”
Bishop Morlino said that the peace especially hoped for in the Christmas season can only happen “when there is respect for every human being, protecting every woman and every pre-born human child.”
WDTPRS salutes Bp. Morlino!
catholic hospitals cannot provide contraception—-period
life begins at fertilization—-conception——-a life a soul is present it does not matter how intercourse occurs a life is a life
how the devil has warpped our minds—-emergency contraception is evil—it is murder
!!
Comment by john pope — 23 December 2007 @ 5:31 pmThank God for true shepherds who display the simple courage to care more about the truth than what other people think about them.
Comment by Richard — 23 December 2007 @ 5:43 pm‘The bishop said this was not a distinctively Catholic issue, “but a matter of biology and human rights.”’
I found this line particularly refreshing. I distinctly remember one Catholic
bishop overseas who stated something to the effect that “To us Catholics” life
begins at conception.
Thank you Bishop Morlino!
Comment by Dave — 23 December 2007 @ 8:40 pmBp Morlino has obviously been thinking and praying a lot about this, and has simply decided to go for it and state the Catholic position (unlike most of his peers in the USCCB). I wonder how much of this new courage was related to his experience with the classical rite and the theology that automatically accompanies it. I think that one of the reasons our bishops have been so wonky on moral issues is that they feel they have no support from the Church, ranging from their timid superiors to the “morally neutral” laypeople created by VatII.
My feeling is that the return of the classical Latin Rite is going to be the equivalent of a depth charge in the moral life of the Church (particularly in that of the heirarchy).
Comment by EDG — 23 December 2007 @ 9:10 pm“life begins at conception” is the interpretation of biology favored by Catholicism but it certainly isn’t the only way of looking at the reproductive process.
Comment by Louis E. — 24 December 2007 @ 1:11 amI believe that Catholic hospitals should not be obliged to provide contraception,and that governments should not be obliged to provide
subsidies and recognition to hospitals that don’t.
Sorry for the long post, but it might saves some lives….
What will be a man is a man already… Quite the carnal observation for the Angelic Doctor, but he was right, and he knew the difference between biology and theology, between reason and faith. So much for the anti-intellectual emtionalism of Louis E., who pretends to make abortifacients into contraception and take away people’s right to choose a doctor who is pro-life. What an irony.
First of all, note that the leading experts in the field of biology are not usually going to be bishops and their moral theologians, who have huge conflicts of interest, like keeping the Catholic hospitals open by tweaking any policy which might respect life (until untold numbers of children die in the womb), and all this so that the hospital can keep receiving federal monies channeled through restrictive, oppressive, pro-death state regulations.
Secondly, note that the leading experts in the field of biology are not going to be those Catholic journalists who happen to be life-long friends of those heading Catholic hospital ethics commissions and have told me that they say what they say on this issue for the sake of past friendships. It’s as if nobody heard Thomas More not going along with the Duke of Norfolk since he didn’t want to go to hell for the sake of friendship.
Thirdly, note that doctors such as Eugene Diamond are experts, hands down, no comparison, and they say that it is absolutely impossible to determine if, for instance, conception will take place at the same time or immediately after any such conscience-cleansing, self-absolution pregnancy test. The egg might already be adrift in the tubes, or not, and it can take a very short or a very long time for the sperm to reach the egg. Timing is everything, but the timing CANNOT medically, scientifically be established. There is no test for the precision needed not to risk murdering someone. Procedures building up a scenario are all guess work. ” Oh! ” someone might say, “that means that there’s a lot of evil going on, too much to believe that it could go on.” But that’s what people are depending on you to say. Let’s wake up. Christ was ripped to shreds on the cross for a reason.
Fourthly, congrats to bishop Morlino for what he’s done, but he MUST do more research, asking tough questions, and not depending on the vacuous statements of some of the most “orthodox” moral theologians in the U.S. of A. (each one praised as THE icon of orthodoxy),
• one of whom told me this (not denying the facts as I’ve presented them above): “What do you want us to do, close the hospitals?”, (and that one is a prof in one of the best seminaries in America)
• another of whom told me this (not denying the facts as I’ve presented them above): “It doesn’t matter. No one will know. It’s so small” (and that one is now the rector at another one of the most “orthodox” seminaries in America),
• and another of whom told me this (not denying the facts as I’ve presented them above): “It doesn’t matter for Catholics[sic] because these are not in-patients we are dealing with”, [No kidding!](and that one was responsible for tens of billions worth of hospital properties in one of the largest and more conservative Archdioceses in America.)
• and another of whom told me this (not denying the facts as I’ve presented them above): “They’re all doing it. What do you want. We’re the experts. I have a name.” (and that one recently went to prison for helping himself to the money…)
I won’t name names. There’s no reason to do so. Ask the super-Catholic moralists the tough questions about the timing of things, and watch them squirm, almost to a man. They’re responsible for keeping the hospitals open. Then ask doctors who are willing to put everything on the line for the sake of obeying God’s will, and you’ll get a different story. And they are the one’s who know.
Don’t be blown away by the enormity of the problem.
Again, God bless Bishop Morlino for what he’s done so far to reverse the hell in Catholic medical ethics and moral theology for many decades now.
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — 24 December 2007 @ 4:11 amGod bless this shepherd for acting on the grace of courage.
When Christ exemplified being counter-cultural, who would have thought that a bishop would need to go against the grain of his fellow bishops?
May the graces of God be given to, and acted upon by, all of our bishops. They need to form one voice. Anything less results in confusion.
Comment by Diane K — 24 December 2007 @ 4:46 amJohn Pope writes:
catholic hospitals cannot provide contraception—-period
That is not exactly true; they can provide contraception to rape victims because the intention is to protect the woman from an unjust aggressor. This is standard pre-Vatican II moral theology (I think you can find it in Jone). If so-called “emergency contraception” is abortifacient, then no, they can’t provide it if the rape victim may be pregnant (they could provide it to inhibit ovulation if that has not yet occurred).
Comment by dcs — 24 December 2007 @ 8:15 amdcs
wow… about abortifacient effect… you cannot know if the woman is just about to ovulate when you provide the so-called “test” (which, really, is a myth)... You cannot risk murdering someone. Well, you can, but can also risk going to hell.
wow… about contraception… consider the following reasoning about pre-Vat II moral theology, as you call it, updated for circumstances of, for instance, wars in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where soldiers with HIV-AIDS systematically rape all women. Obviously, any abortifacient chemicals which may be added to a condom (in case of breakage) are to be excluded. What I write here has been vetted at the CDF and elsewhere, passing the inquisition perfectly. This was written some years ago against I think it was four Cardinals who, at the time, were encouraging the use of Condoms in, more or less, any and every circumstance. Happy, careful, reading. You have to know that ethics (mere customs) and real morality are worlds apart, the first demoncratic—I mean democratic— and the second based on natural law, which does not change before or after any council. Think continuity for Truth!
And, sorry, John Pope, but distinctions are in order. You may even agree.
========
ON THE LICIT AND ILLICIT USE OF CONDOMS
1. The use of condoms by a married couple who have what seems to be a good reason to use condoms – such as a risk of death due to diseases exacerbated by pregnancy, e.g., certain types of cancerous growths, diabetes, heart conditions – remains gravely dishonest for two reasons: (1) sexual activity is inherently ordained to the begetting of children in such manner that the act is to remain open to the transmission of life (which can be clearly proven from both reason and the fonts of Revelation); (2) the unity of the couple obliged by the very act of sexual union is gravely damaged in its biological integrity. Abstinence is required in the face of fatality for these diseases, as with others such as HIV-AIDS. As it is, condoms are not reliable.
2. Fornication and adultery, i.e., gravely disregarding the exclusive and indissoluble relationship demanded by the very act of sexual union, does not excuse the use of condoms by a man and woman who are not married to each other (regardless of the presence of disease), for the use of condoms remains intrinsically dishonest for the two reasons given in the previous case: it is not an exchange of vows regarding an exclusive and indissoluble relationship which – by way of secondary intention – provides the sexual act with its nature of being ordained to the begetting of children by way of due physical union. Instead, this nature of the sexual act is intrinsic to sexuality.
3. The usage of vaginal condoms by women who are in grave danger of being raped does not contradict the points made above since, in the case of rape, not only is there is no possibility to assent to an exclusive and indissoluble relationship (which would also be impossible for adulterers), but also because the coercion involved requires a rejection of the physical integrity of the sexual act inasmuch as this is possible. If there is no force, rejection of the physical integrity of the sexual act is gravely immoral. Rejecting unjust aggression by inhibiting the physical integrity of the sexual act with a vaginal condom does not reject the intrinsic nature of the sexual act in and of itself, as does the use of condoms in any other situation which excludes force. An analogy would be an ectopic pregnancy, whereby the fallopian tube, for instance, can be removed even though an embryo is attached. Although the rejection of the tube is the rejection of a dangerous metamorphosis of a structure with which the embryo, through no fault of its own, finds itself, that rejection of the structure undergoing a dangerous metamorphosis is not a direct rejection of the embryo itself. Again, it is not any secondary intention which demands or excuses from either an exclusive and indissoluble relationship or from the physical integrity of the sexual act, for those are things which are demanded by the sexual act in and of itself.
4. In regard to the use of condoms by homosexuals, the grave perversity of sexual activity between two people of the same sex is not circumstantially made into something even more serious by the use of a condom. However, such usage cannot be encouraged with the idea that condoms are safe or safer in view of, for instance, HIV-AIDS, for such encouragement is, in principle, a denial of the power of grace in regard to the practice of abstinence. Moreover, it is inevitable that after a given length of time, the risk in regard to disease will be fulfilled.
5. In regard to the objection that the fulness of moral truth should not be taught to people even for many decades (such as with the often cited example of the early work of the Jesuits in South America), that objection is simply a proclamation that the grace of Christ cannot work except through a pelagian usage of culture. The reason why a principle of natural law is rejected after it is (quickly) known is not so much because of human weakness, but because the bearer of the message is not credible. The messenger must, like Christ and the saints, be willing to be a martyr. People know when they are being suffocatingly patronized. While pedagogy demands that one speak firstly of Christ’s Sacrifice as God’s marriage with the Church, one is not to set out to hide any aspect of moral truth from anyone, assuming that everyone is insincere, and in bad faith.
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — 24 December 2007 @ 9:00 amI wrote to thank this bishop.
As a pharmacist with a conscience clause, I was deeply distressed when the
Comment by magdalen — 24 December 2007 @ 10:52 amConnecticut bishops chose to ok this contraceptive/abortifacient. I and
others in the medical field have put our own jobs on the line to defend
life from the MOMENT of conception to natural end. I had to leave a previous
position for example. So to have bishops ‘pull the rug’ out from under us
by giving approval was disheartening. They are, in fact, saying that
contraception and abortion are okay in this instance. Then the next instance? The next ‘emergency’? One must stand fast to ALL the Church teaches without
exception and how we need our shepherds to guide us and not just confuse
us or, worse yet, be our enemy.
Magdalen, may the tiny Infant Jesus bless you superabundantly. I’ve met nurses like you. You are not alone. Many suffer and are the martyrs of today. Thanks, and thanks again. The last thing those who have lost their fatherhood in their Holy Orders think about is that there will be martyrs. The more martyrs we have, the more we know the Lord is blessing us. THIS is the seedbed of good vocations!
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo — 24 December 2007 @ 11:29 amIt amazes me that so many people choose to subscribe to the morals of homophobic, mysogynistic, racist, violent, cattle-sacrificing Mesopotamian nomads who lived 2000 years ago who “knew” that the world was flat and that the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is exactly 3. That’s wisdom?
The Bible in its current form was edited by committee vote at the First Council of Nicaea in order to consolidate political power in the Roman Empire under Constantine, a sectarian dictator, who assimilated the various sects of pagan religions of that time into one official State religion, enforced by penalty of death.
Fascism comes in many forms: atheist, Christian, Islamic… one is not better than the other. Hiding behind the supposed holiness of the largest political entity in the history of the world, the Catholic Church, does not make Christian intrusion upon the lives of others morally sound.
Comment by Jordan — 24 December 2007 @ 3:11 pmDear Jordan,
Right you are! Those nomads were as silly as they come. Refraining from murder? Respecting one’s
Comment by Puzzled — 24 December 2007 @ 4:45 pmparents? Avoiding the bed of Mrs. Smith next door? Eating beef? Forgiving debts? What nonsense!
Dear Fr. di Lorenzo,
Thank you, a thousand times and more, and God bless you for the much-needed clarity in your response! It cuts to the bone of what I sometimes call the “holy obfuscation”(or perhaps “holy mental fog”?) which is all-too-present, even in many of the apparent “orthodox champions of Catholicism” in the United States.
I especially appreciate your double exhortation to “wake up”, and yet “don’t despair”; those are two of the three major temptations (I’ve found) when one truly confronts the monstrosity and unearthly enormity of the culture of death: sedate yourself mentally (and restrict your thoughts to more tame issues, such as immigration, helping the poor, and other non-mass-murder issues), or throw up our hands in defeat (followed closely by the third: rant and rave and commit most every possible sin against charity, against anyone in range who isn’t lock-step with one’s own fastidious take on the given situation).
Our bishops in Wisconsin all seem to mean well (isn’t tha