As per the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference,
- "September 30 marked the end of the public comment period on the 'preventive services' mandate from the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which fails to provide conscience protection and requires private health plans to cover female surgical sterilization and contraceptives, including drugs which can kill an unborn child before and after implantation in the mother’s womb. HHS is empowered to take this action under the 2010 health care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).... Since Congress failed to include conscience language in PPACA, many individuals and groups, including the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC) and Pennsylvania Catholic Health Association (PCHA), have urged Congress to adopt a Respect for Rights of Conscience Act....At issue is the ability for a Catholic organization to be true to its identity. If this rule stands, Catholic organizations will not be able to, well, be Catholic [Certainly, all health care and social service professionals of good will, working in secular settings, also need conscience protection!]. Now that the time for public comment to HHS has passed, all concerned citizens should visit, call, fax or e-mail their members of Congress urging them to co-sponsor and support H.R. 1179 and S. 1467."
As of Columbus Day 2011, there are only three co-sponsors of HR 1179 among Pennsylvania's delegation in the United Sates House of Representatives. Bravo to Representatives Mike Fitzpatrick [PA-8], Tim Murphy [PA-18], and Todd Platts [PA-19]! Thank you!!! It should be noted that the system for contacting members of the House has become increasingly convoluted (In fact, Representative Fitzpatrick seems to be the only Pennsylvanian with a good, old fashioned email address!). While most have web site contact forms, most of those forms will NOT accept messages, unless the sender has a zip code from within the representative's district. Hence, it becomes all the more vital that these members of the Pennsulvania delegation be contacted by their constituents:
•Representative Robert A. Brady (D - 01)
•Representative Chaka Fattah (D - 02)
•Representative Mike Kelly (R - 03)
•Representative Jason Altmire (D - 04)
•Representative Glenn (GT) Thompson (R - 05)
•Representative Jim Gerlach (R - 06)
•Representative Patrick Meehan (R - 07)
•Representative Bill Shuster (R - 09)
•Representative Tom Marino (R - 10)
•Representative Louis J. (Lou) Barletta (R - 11)
•Representative Mark S. Critz (D - 12)
•Representative Allyson Y. Schwartz (D - 13)
•Representative Mike Doyle (D - 14)
•Representative Charlie Dent (R - 15)
•Representative Joe Pitts (R - 16)
•Representative Tim Holden (D - 17)
Some of the above identify themselves as both pro life and Catholic. This is one of those moments where the "rubber meets the road." We need them to come through for us!
While both Senators Robert Casey & Pat Toomey identify themselves as pro life Catholics, NEITHER has become a co-sponsor of S. 1467, as of Columbus Day 2011.
In fairness to those of our obviously mislead representatives in the U.S. House and our two obviously misled U.S. senators, it has often been said that "We get the leadership which we deserve." Yet how are they to truly appreciate the absolute seriousness of abortion, abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilizations, if there is a "no big deal" attitude coming from the Catholic grassroots? In fact, there appears to be a disturbing and perplexing lack of support from the very institutions - Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges/universities and Catholic parishes - which would be most impacted by the lack of conscience protections....
CATHOLIC HOSPITALS
Catholic hospitals have no business allowing priveleges to physicians who are known to provide immoral services in their private practices or providing referrals to individuals who are known to provide immoral services (
In addition to common sense, I believe that this opinion is firmly supported by the Vatican's Charter for Health Care Workers, as well as the USCCB's Ethical and Religious Directives (5th ed).). In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, five of six Catholic hospitals fall under the very large umbrella of
Catholic Health East (Only
Holy Redeemer does NOT.). On the web sites of Catholic Health East's
Mercy Health System and
St. Mary Medical Center, as well as
Holy Redeemer, numerous obstetricians and/or gynecologists are identified.
Yet, there is only ONE NFP-only obstetrician and/or gynecologist in the Philadelphia area! It is perhaps the examples of Dr. Frank Craparo and Dr. Steven Smith which are most dramatic. An
August 10th NY Times piece introduced the term "
selective reduction" to many of its readers. Selective reduction is a euphemism for
abortion,
often for the well-to-do. Among those contemplating a "
selective reduction," the blogosphere indicates Dr. Frank Craparo to be a highly popular practitioner (See
FertileThoughts.com, 8/9/10 and
FertileThoughts.com, 6/9/11.). Yet the names of Dr. Craparo and his associate, Dr. Stephen Smith (i.e.,
In a widely publicized case, Dr. Smith was noted by the Huffington Post (& others) to have recommended abortion to a St. Mary Medical Center patient.), remain on the
online directory of Mercy Health System! Dr.
Smith's name is also on the online directory of Holy Redeemer!
Again, Catholic hospitals have no business allowing priveleges to physicians who are known to provide immoral services in their private practices or providing referrals to individuals who are known to provide immoral services. Since a de fault message is being sent that adherence to Catholic medical ethics is "no big deal," why should we be surprised when SOME "pro life Catholic" politicians act in this manner?
CATHOLIC COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES
While there has been a subsequent trickling in of support from some Catholic colleges, the
Cardinal Newman Society reported on September 29 that only "
Eighteen Catholic colleges and universities [
of about 190],
all marked by their commitment to Catholic identity and fidelity to Catholic teaching, joined today with The Cardinal Newman Society in an appeal to the Obama administration to exempt all religious objectors from a mandate requiring health insurance plans to cover sterilization and contraceptives, including some that cause abortion." Of Pennsylvania's 18 Catholic colleges and universities, only 1 joined with the Cardinal Newman Society!
Bravo to Father O'Connor & DeSales University of Center Valley! Thank you!
CATHOLIC PARISHES
Daniel Cardinal DiNardo (Chairman of the USSB's Committee on Pro Life Activities) has reminded us that "
The drugs that Americans would be forced to subsidize under the new rule include Ella, which was approved by the FDA as an ‘emergency contraceptive’ but can act like the abortion drug RU-486. It can abort an established pregnancy weeks after conception. The pro-life majority of Americans – Catholics and others – would be outraged to learn that their premiums must be used for this purpose" [
Actually, hormonal contraceptives in general hold this abortifacient potential.].
Archbishop Chaput has explained that "
The religious exemption is so narrowly crafted that hospitals, universities, religious affiliated social service agencies, Catholic dioceses, parishes and even Catholic elementary schools would be subject to the contraceptive/sterilization mandate." Yet, numerous Catholic parishes advertise providers of these poisons in their weekly parish bulletins (As just one example,
try cross-checking those pharmacies with the manufacturer of the abortifacient Plan B!). The tragic reality is that it is barely a handful of pharmacies in the United States that refuse this blatant cooperation in evil. In a June 9, 2005 letter, the
president of the Pontifical Academy for Life reviewed "
The principle of licit cooperation in evil":
- "The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.
"Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the 'distance' (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.
"Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person. Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the 'double effect' or 'indirect voluntary' action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question.
"A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted.
"Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so [emphases added]....
[Specifically speaking of illicitly developed vaccines, it was stated:] "there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically"
Bravo to the pastors of such parishes as Holy Trinity in Morrisville, St. Ignatius in Yardley, and St. Mark in Bristol for removing ads for offending pharmacies from their bulletins!!!
