Dear Claire:

Well, you have misquoted the material. We have to fix that first. I have made editorial changes to clarify what it and is not a quote from Bishop Sgreccio. Only that part in dark red is a quote from the Bishop.

The part that says, "The ethical problems with Plan B, however, goes beyond the abortifacient effects of the pill, especially if the drug is to be administered in Catholic hospitals" is a statement of the reporter writing the story to introduce the quote from Fr. Fehlner. Fr. Fehlner's opinion is NOT part of the Vatican Statement, but his own personal opinion.

With that understood I see no variance between what the Pontifical Academy of Life stated and the position of the United States Bishops.

The Academy states: "Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress, just as in the case of abortion. Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall, which is what is being implicitly suggested."

The Academy, which is speaking only of the particular drug, is saying that it cannot be used because of its abortifacient effect which is implicitly desired by those who ask for it.

The U.S. Bishops say the same thing in slightly different wording: "It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum."

In Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teachings, by Kevin D. O'Rourke and Philip Boyle, with an imprimatur from the Archdiocese of St. Louis, page 340 is summarizes the issue when a rape victim presents herself to a hospital:

2. Since the sperm in the case of rape is the result of unjust aggression, steps may be taken to prevent conception.

3. Any medical procedure, the purpose and/or effect of which is abortive, is never permissible. (my emphasis)

Hygienic procedures, including vaginal douching, are morally permitted since that are not abortifacient in effect.

4. A pregnancy test is essential to determine existence of pregnancy:

a. If the pregnancy test is positive, no antiovulant drugs may be used.

b. If the pregnancy test is negative, it is essential that hospital personnel question the patient to ascertain the time of ovulation within the menstrual cycle.

c. If the patient has just ovulated, an antiovulant drug may be not be administered. The use of a contraceptive steroid is permissible only to prevent ovulation.

Everyone agrees that risking an abortion or intending an abortion is not permitted even in the case of rape. The issue presented by Fr. Fehlner is whether or not contraceptive effect to prevent conception may be attempted. Fr. Fehlner has the opinion that the contraceptive effect is never permissible even when there is no abortive effect and thus the woman cannot try to prevent conception when raped.

Other theologians differ with that such as that in the book Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teachings which has an imprimatur.

So on that subject we have opinion, a "battle of the theologians," but not a declaration from the Vatican on this particular point that I aware of.

The one thing that surprises me about the what Fr. Fehlner said is that he seems to not take into account the Catholic teaching on Double-Effect. But, his comment is just a couple of sentences to a reporter. He may have said what was quoted in a larger context that the reporter did not quote.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary