German Bishops’ Decision on Morning-after Pill Is an Example to Be Followed

By Alesandro Speciale
Vatican Insider
February 22, 2013

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/pillola-chiesa-church-iglesia-carrasco-22574/

Ignacio Carrasco de Paula

The German bishops’ breakthrough decision on emergency contraception for rape victims has sparked heated debates and controversies in Germany and abroad.

It all began with the case of a girl who was raped and denied the morning-after pill in two Catholic hospitals in Cologne. The city’s archbishop, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, was asked to intervene and after much reflection and various consultations he agreed that the morning-after pill should be made available to victims of rape. German bishops supported his decision this week.

The President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Mgr. Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, spoke to Vatican Insider about this at the end of the Academy’s plenary assembly.

Monsignor, what are we really talking about here?

German bishops have decided to back their colleague, Cardinal Meisner (archbishop of Cologne, Ed.), in introducing a law that would be implemented in Catholic hospitals in his diocese. It is an exemplary law which reiterates what the Catholic Church has been proposing for the past 50 years - but a law that has been misinterpreted.

Why was it misinterpreted?

Because journalistic language is different from theological or clinical language. The “morning-after pill” is a journalistic, not a medical term. It does not appear in any prescription pads or prescriptions. This is why Cardinal Meisner stressed that the term “morning-after pill” can refer to a number of things and urged people not to use it. All he did was tell doctors which criteria to follow: I think it is acceptable for women that have fallen victim to rape to be administered medicine with a contraceptive active ingredient. However, he did not agree abortive medicine should be made available.

Why is contraceptive medication acceptable in rape cases but not in other circumstances?

The criteria the Church follows in its rejection of contraceptives can be found in the Humanae Vitae and even before that, in the Casti Connubii. It refers to marital intercourse which consolidates a couple’s bond, has a pro-creational purpose and so on. Rape, on the other hand, is a sexual act whose meaning has been destroyed by violence. Therefore, in this case, the moral implications of contraception are lost. A violent act cannot be considered a demonstration of openness to life.

Why are people, including many Catholics, unable to grasp this principle and why is this issue so controversial?

These are extreme cases. People are more used to hearing about common cases rather than exceptional ones. But after what happened in the Congo during the war this law has been implemented in Catholic hospitals for fifty years. Some Catholic hospitals like the ones in Cologne are obviously not aware of this criteria.

Critics say this type of medication can cause an abortion, albeit unintentionally, and that this is not a risk we can afford to take. What are your thoughts on this?

The Church needs to shape people’s consciences. What Church teaching says in this case is: in cases of rape all possible action must be taken to prevent a pregnancy but not to interrupt it. Whether a given medicine is classed as a contraceptive or abortion-inducing medication, is up to doctors and scientists, not the Church.

So this is just a storm in a teacup?

This question needs to be carefully analysed, a generic response that applies to everyone is not enough. It is therefore absurd that there is a law (like the one in Germany, Ed.) which prescribes that any woman who goes to a hospital and says she has been raped should be given any old pill. This decision needs to be made by a doctor, based on his or her knowledge and experience. Too often, however, the pill is just handed out, without any interest being shown in the person as an individual.