On Church & science & Giovanni Maria Lancisi

A RADIO EXCHANGE ON RELIGION & SCIENCE

I listened to a recent podcast (March 2, 2012) of the radio show Coast to Coast in which host George Noory interviewed "skeptic" Guy Harrison about Guy's book on skepticism. During the interview was the following exchange between a caller and Harrison (emphasis mine):

Caller: [I] have a belief that religion is one of the main problems with the human condition, is the belief in the supernatural. We had 500 years of the dark ages that stopped science, basically. And so man is really behind 500 years of scientific knowledge. I'd just like to get his take on that.

Guy Harrison: Yeah, you know, I agree. I don't want to just pick on religion, but yeah, religion's been a source–– has been a big drag on progress. There's no denying that. And, not picking on any one specific religion––just sort of all them, if you lump 'em all together, they have been a drag on progress. ...

But it's also not just religion, I mean there's all sorts of sloppy thinking, you know, superstitious thinking, whatever you want to call it that is part and separate from religion, that has really harmed our progress. We could be, man, we could be two to three thousand years beyond where we are now. We could be beyond the solar system colonizing half the galaxy by now.

First, let me just comment on the above exchange. Neither man offered a single example of how religion "stopped science" for "500 years" or been a "big drag on progress." Science has never stopped. The caller's comment is delusional nonsense, perhaps fueled by a blind anti-religious bigotry.

Harrison went on to insist he wasn't picking on religion per se, that science, too, was sometimes wrong, but didn't accuse science of ever being a "drag on progress." He only cited "religion" and "superstition" as the evidence for the caller's self-labeled "problem." Even though science was sometimes "wrong," the exchange was clear: religion is bad for "progress," and science is good.

So, to point out the 800 lb. hairy gorilla of irony in the room, Harrison, the-skeptic's, principle to determine what is good for "progress" is itself a scientifically unverifiable principle. How does one scientifically measure if intergalatic travel is something to get excited about? How do you measure societal "progress" using the scientific method? How do you quantify in a laboratory a "problem"? What is the unit of measure for "sloppy thinking"?

In the opening of the final hour of the Coast to Coast interview, Noory asked Harrison if he thought the wonderful design of the universe was evidence for "somebody" who "put this together." Harrison denied that the universe was evidence for a creator of some kind. He said:

It's not proven. And simply because we can't explain every last detail and aspect of the universe or our own bodies is not in itself evidence of anything. It's just ignorance. ... [T]o simply say the concept of irreducible complexity––to look at a cell and say, you know, we just can't figure out how all this came together and how it happened, we just don't have the answers, therefore, it must have been a god or gods or some advanced alien species that created us. I mean that is jumping to an extraordinary conclusion that's just not warranted. You know, doesn't mean it's not true, doesn't disprove it, I totally admit that, but it's just not a valid conclusion based on ignorance. And it's anti-science. A lot of people say intelligent design is science. It's not. It's anti-science. It's giving up. It's saying it's too complex, we don't know the answer, therefore: magic. That's wrong. It's not a good way to think.

Notice two things in the above quote. He defends his own position, which clearly upholds "science" as the method by which truth must be derived. And yet in his opening, he defends the very science which he admits is insufficient to explain the reality in question. By his own account, he takes a position of faith. I could even agree with him that intelligent design is not by definition a scientific method. But so what. Science is not the only method capable of deriving a truth. Science can't measure "hope," "happiness," "love," "holiness," "progress," "sloppiness," etc... Science can't even measure that science is the only method to determine truth. Yet even skeptics, such as Harrison, cite these terms, these ideas, as realities.

A while back, I came across this quote from a scientist in response to the 2011 Stephen Hawking incident about a universe coming from "nothing."

Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise ‘from nothing’. But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We’ve realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a ‘point’, it is latent with particles and forces – still a far richer construct than the philosopher’s ‘nothing’. Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what ‘breathes fire’ into the equations, and actualised them into a real cosmos. The fundamental question of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ remains the province of philosophers. (Martin Rees (astrophysicist & cosmologist), Just Six Numbers)

All that being said, the Church has historically been an ally of science since ancient times, despite what the current stereotype says. The two arenas, Church and science, are not opposed. Certain modern philosophy assumes as much, but such is not the case––at least if we try to scientifically demonstrate that Church is a "drag."

Why did neither the caller, nor Harrison, argue that science, which has been "sloppy" and "wrong" time and time again throughout history, has been a "drag on progress"? The world is flat, then it's round. Smoking is good for you, now it's bad. Chocolate went from good to bad to good, depending on the study. The divide among scientists on antiseptics in the early days. Salt, coffee, the height of this or that dinosaur, what the "face on Mars" really looks like, etc...––all these and more could be viewed as scientific "errors" or contradictions I've read over the years. Should science itself then be considered an impediment to "progress"?

In the same way, prominent members of the Church have been instrumental in the development of scientific fields throughout the centuries. Today's culture tends to turn a blind eye to this reality, perhaps due to poor historical teaching, or perhaps due to the false notion that Church and science must be opposed.

Dr. Stephen Barr's book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith describes numerous priests, religious, and other members of the Church and their scientific contributions over the centuries. He writes:

Long before Galileo, and continuing to the present day, one can find examples in every century, not merely of church patronage of science, but of important scientific figures who were themselves monks, priests, and even bishops. (p. 8-9)

Barr goes on to cite a few notable examples (see p. 9-10).

GIOVANNI MARIA LANCISI

I want to take a moment to profile one such Catholic scientist I recently researched. Giovanni Maria Lancisi was born in Rome in 1654.

Britannica.com says he was a "clinician and anatomist who is considered the first modern hygienist." One of his most famous works was called On Sudden Death, a project done "at the request of [Pope] Clement XI to explain an increase in the number of sudden deaths in Rome." The encyclopedia entry ends by saying the above treatise along with one called On the Motion of the Heart and on Aneurysms "markedly contributed to knowledge of cardiac pathology."

Citing the Dictionary of Medical Eponyms, the Wikipedia entry on Lancisi reads: "He was given the lost anatomical plates of Bartolomeo Eustachius by Pope Clement XI. ... Lancisi edited and published them in 1714 as the Tabulae anatomicae."

A pubmed.gov biography of Lancisi says: "Arguably, Lancisi's most notable medical contribution was the anatomical description of the medial longitudinal striae of the corpus callosum, in addition to other documents he wrote in the field of neurology."

Here's an excerpt from a 2010 issue of the Italian Journal of Public Health:

In 1714 Giovanni Maria Lancisi, doctor to Popes Clement XI and Innocent XI, Head of the Santo Spirito and Teacher of Anatomy, donated his library to the hospital and ordered that the library materials be catagorised as follows: grammar, rhetoric and poetry, history and politics; philosophy and mathematics, experimental physics, natural history, veterinary medicine, pharmacopoeia and chemistry, anatomy and surgery, Greek and Arabic medicine, medicine of the Ancient Latin, Latin modern medicine, miscellaneous, councils and church history, Bibles, as well as economic and civil law.

A 1911 article reprinted at OldandSold.com reads in part:

At his death Lancisi left his fortune and his library to Santo Spirito Hospital, on condition that a new portion of the hospital should be erected for women. There is no doubt that he belongs among the most distinguished of contributors to medical science, and Hirsch declares that anatomy, practical medicine, and hygiene are indebted to him for notable achievements. His books are still classics. The one on Sudden Death worked a revolution in the medical diseases of the brain and heart. His work De Motu Cordis et Aneurysmatibus has been pronounced epoch-making, and his suggestion of percussion over the sternum in order to determine the presence of an aneurysm, made him almost an anticipator of Auenbrugger and prompted Morgagni's famous book De Sedibus et Causis Morborum, which appeared after his death.

The Mitral Valve website contains several screenshots of his printed writings and details some of his medical contributions.

So these are just a few historical notes on a great Catholic scientist in history, supported by Popes, who contributed immensely to the field of medical science. As this was prior to the so-called "Enlightenment" closer to the 1800s, perhaps it falls within the original caller's 500 year window of when science "stopped" because of religion. Either way, perhaps I will do more Catholic scientist profiles in the future.

Parallels between the HHS Mandate, Constitutions, and Honduras

The Obama Administration's recent ultimatum to religious organizations included a potential penalty of up to $2,000 per employee to every organization that did not comply with the HHS mandate to provide, without a co-pay, contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients as part of their insurance policies.

While the bishops of the United States and their allies combat this mandate as an unconstitutional violation of religious liberty, it is worth recalling another constitutional issue early in Obama's term.

In May 2009, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya attempted to alter Honduran law and manipulate the parameters of term limits. The matter escalated in the Honduran government in the following weeks. The attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest on June 28 on grounds of violating Honduran law.

The Honduran Congress voted to remove Zelaya from office by a tally of 122-6 for attempting to alter term limits. The Honduran Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya from office by a vote of 15-0. This decision was not a coup, even though various media outlets will only describe Zelaya's actual removal by military personnel as such. It was a democratic vote, overwhelmingly in favor of removing Zelaya.

The following day, U.S. President Obama remarked on Zelaya's arrest: "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras, the democratically elected President there. In that we have joined all the countries in the region, including Colombia and the Organization of American States." Zelaya is well-known as a political leftist and ally of Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez.

Washington Lawyer Miguel Estrada shed light on the legal dimension of altering term limits under the Honduran Constitution. In a July 10 Los Angeles Times article, Estrada wrote: "Article 239 [of the Honduran Constitution] specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection 'shall cease forthwith' in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any 'infraction' of the succession rules constitutes treason."

On July 8, the Obama Administration protested the removal of Zelaya by cutting $16.5 million in military aid to Honduras. Soon after, the Administration revoked four diplomatic visas for four members of the acting Honduran president's administration.

Over the next months, negotiations persisted as Zelaya fought to be reinstated with the full support of the Obama Administration. On August 25, the Administration remained dissatisfied with the progress and imposed additional sanctions on Honduras by denying all non-emergency visas to Honduran citizens desiring to enter the United States.

Pope John XXIII wrote in his encyclical Pacem in Terris, "Relations between nations are to be further regulated by justice. This implies, over and above recognition of their mutual rights, the fulfillment of their respective duties." That the American government did not give due respect for the rights and judicial providence of the Honduran congressional and supreme court votes is worth fair consideration.

Why was there such an aggressive response in this incident from the Obama administration? Is it possible Obama has an affinity for those who seek to end term limits? Chavez removed term limits in February 2009. The Nicaraguan president Ortega, to whom Zelaya fled after his ousting, also governs in the absence of term limits. Colombia, who Obama specifically mentioned as his ally in his above quote, also sought in 2009 to get rid of term limits. Could we see Obama seek to alter term limits if he is re-elected? Are these recent term limit incidents in Central and South America indicative of a global pattern?

Violence has since ensued between Zelaya supporters and the incumbent government. But what is the real moral of the story? The Obama Administration supported an unconstitutional position. For those who did not submit to their position, penalties were inflicted.

Sound familiar? See the beginning of this article if it doesn't.

Myths about Church teaching on contraception and the religious liberty at stake

I thought it worthwhile to transcribe portions of the February 16, 2012 appearance of Bishop William Lori before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (View the entire hearing here.) I also included a quote from Rabbi Soloveichik. I'm sure all too few citizens watched the panel, so this may help dispel some of the ignorant comments out there about the Church. I'll throw in my own comments here and there, and bold emphasis is my own.

CHURCH NOT IGNORANT OF WOMEN'S HEALTH AND CONTRACEPTION

Blake Farenthold (to Bishop Lori) - The Catholic Church does not have a problem with contraceptives for medical purposes. So I would assume from that it wouldn't be morally objectionable to the Church to pay for those for medical purposes. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I'm just trying to make sure I understand where the Church stands.

Bishop Lori - That would be my understanding also.

Notice in this first part something many people probably do not know––the Church is not opposed to contraceptive drugs, per se. The Church is opposed to using contraceptive medicine to deliberately compromise the sacredness of fertility in the marital act or to induce post-fertilization abortions, which the Church would consider the killing of a human person.¹

Farenthold - And there are numerous organizations, both federally and private funding that make available free or low cost contraceptives throughout the country. I'm sure you're aware of that.

Bishop Lori - Yes, that's also my understanding.

Farenthold - So we've got a mandate here that really is a lot of much ado about nothing. If it were carefully crafted, the chances of somebody not able to get the care, or for that matter the optional contraceptives that they desire, is, for all practical purposes, nil.

Bishop Lori - Those services are very, very widely available and what we are talking about is a very narrow band. It is clearly a minority opinion, or a minority view. But we think it's one that ought to be protected.

The government's health care plan is by no means limited to contraceptive drugs for medical use alone. Medicinal use of otherwise contraceptive drugs, said the Bishop, is not against Catholic moral teaching.

Bruce Braley - A significant portion of women, 1.5 million, use the Pill exclusively for medical purposes other than contraception. They use contraceptives to treat severe menstrual pain, migranes, uterine fibroids, and endometriosis. Oral contraceptives also help prevent ovarian cancer. ... Do your religious teachings prohibit the use of contraception for health-related purposes, such as treating ovarian cancer?

Bishop Lori - I think Catholic moral theology is very nuanced. It recognizes that the same drug can operate in different ways and accomplish different things. If it is used to prevent birth, it is against our teaching. And so we have operated with a considerable–– with a lot more nuance than we're usually given credit for. Also observe, by the way, that 90% of all private health care plans give access to contraception. We're talking about a very narrow band, and for very specific purposes here.

Later, congresswoman Rosa DeLauro asked a version of the exact same challenge again.

Rosa DeLauro - There are so many studies, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist, but there are medical studies today that show––and we can give you other citations––that women who do take the pill have a much lower risk of developing ovarian cancer. ... I have to ask each of you, are you morally opposed to allowing women who work in your facilities, many of whom are non-religious, non-whatever the denomination, that were not hired for a religious purpose, are you opposed to allowing them to take a pill or to get an IUD in cases where their lives depend on it? When we know that it could lower the risk of ovarian cancer?

Bishop Lori - [O]ur Catholic moral theology, as I've indicated, recognizes that the same drug can be used for different purposes with different effects, and our plans reflect that. So we should be given credit for the nuance and the understanding that we have already brought to the table. All the more reason for the government not to move in and try to force our hand now.

Here, again, Bishop Lori dispels the myth that Catholic teaching says these drugs should not even be used for medical purposes. I found it telling that different challengers asked basically the same question to the Bishop––won't the Church even let women use these medications for medical, non-contraceptive purposes? Bishop Lori did well to stay on point. While the Church is opposed to the barrier of contraception into the marital, sacramental representation of Christ and His bride the Church, medicinal use of certain drugs may be accepted.

It may also be worthwhile here to point out one of the comments of Pope Paul VI in his famous encyclical:

On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 15)

So for example, if a life-threatening operation had the unintended consequence of sterilizing a woman or a man, such could not be considered immoral. Fr. Francis Hoffman from Relevant Radio also pointed out the prudence of avoiding sexual relations during times when one is using contraceptives for medicinal purposes.

If a person is taking the birth control pill for other reasons, then during the time they're taking the pill they must refrain from marital relations. Because there are no proportionate reasons to put a conceived human embryo in danger of dying. So can you use it as a medicine for other reasons? Yes, but you must refrain from relations during that period. (Fr. Francis Hoffman, Relevant Radio, Feb. 28, 2012, MP3 archive)

(EDIT 8/17/14 TO ADD: Fr. Grondin at Catholic Answers has a detailed answer regarding proportionate reasons in which he states: "the Church does permit the use of the birth control pill to treat medical/health issues provided that contraception is neither the intention nor means by which the good effect is achieved." Read more.)

See evidence for the abortive potential of oral contraceptives below. Other Church statements related to Humanae Vitae's #15 include:

Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available. (USCCB, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 53)

An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother's exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver. (CCC#1737)

The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. (CCC#1754)

I won't delve into specific case examples. Suffice it to say, I think this teaching surprised a number of the congressional interrogators, and probably would surprise many readers who think the Church perversely desires to deny women drugs even for medical purposes.

Also, notice DeLauro's appeal to certain contraceptives and their benefits to ovarian cancer. This amplifies the point I made yesterday (see U.S. government candidly admits oral contraception increases risk of cancer in women) about how the HHS' own scientific sources claim oral contraceptives reduce ovarian cancer risk, but increase breast, cervical, and liver cancer risk. Other studies warn of other medical risks to contraceptives. In December, Health Canada revealed a study that suggested that oral contraceptives containing drospirenone could greatly increase a woman's chance to develop a blood clot. Last year, doctors at the University of California claimed in their study that hormone-altering contraceptives contributed to memory loss. Last November, a study showed that persons in geographic regions using the Pill more often have a higher rate of prostate cancer, that men may possibly be exposed to the excess estrogen inducing the cancer. There are many, many articles and studies searchable online detailing severe negative side effects, short and long term, of using hormonal contraceptives. Regardless, even assuming the Pill was hypothetically totally safe, the Church could only condone its medicinal use, not its contraceptive use.

THIS IS A LIBERTY ISSUE, NOT A "CONTRACEPTION" ISSUE

Patrick McHenry - Is this ruling by HHS, do you view this as an issue of contraception and abortifacients, or an issue of religious freedom and conscience protections?

Bishop Lori - We view it as an issue of religious liberty. We view it first of all and primarily at the level of principle. It is a question of government reaching into the internal governance of religious bodies and making a requirement contrary to Church teaching.

Some have tried to make this a "contraceptive" issue, but such cannot be reasonably argued. As Bishop Lori also pointed out in his opening statement, the principle of religious liberty would still apply even if this was, for example, the government trying to force Jewish institutions to serve ham against their religious beliefs.

Edolphus Towns - I'm trying to understand exactly what problems the Bishop has with the Administration's policy. That's what I'm really trying to understand. It's not clear to me.

Bishop Lori - Yes, well, the problems are at the level of principle and at the level of practicality. The principle is the government's reaching in and forcing us to do something. We might disagree inside of the Church. We might have our problems inside of the Church. But it's not for the government to weigh in and be the arbiter of those things. And secondly, many Church entities, such as the diocese of Bridgeport, which I can certainly speak about, they're self-insured. And so as a result, I am not only am I the employer, but also the insurer. And so certainly at the level of practicality, the new rule does nothing to help. And also there are religious insurers, there are individuals who have conscientious objections, and the rules do nothing for them. So we have problems on all those levels.

Towns then asked if purchasing insurance that covered contraception or abortifacients would be against Church teaching. Bishop Lori said yes. And then the Rabbi added this:

Rabbi Soloveichik - My concern here, congressman, is not what one particular Jewish organization might say about a particular prescription or procedure or whether their tenets are violated when they're forced to provide that. My concern is when Congress, or the Administration, comes in and says well, I see that there are some members of one faith who say this, some members of the other faith who say this, so we're going to unilaterally side with these people and force everyone, even over their objections, to violate their conscience. In general, a religious organization or a religious community should be free to define what the tenets of their faith are, and they should be listened to when they are told that a particular demand or mandate by the federal government violates those liberties.

Congressman Elijah Cummings attempted an ad populum argument.

Elija Cummings (to Bishop Lori) - If there's a woman who's, say, working for the Catholic entity, and she comes to you and she says, I want contraception, and it's something that I want. I've read surveys that said 98% of Catholic women use contraception. I'm just curious, what do you say to her?

Bishop Lori - When somebody comes aboard to work for the Church to begin with, the teaching is clear, the mission is clear. The teaching of the Church and all of its nuance is set forth and the terms of the plan are clear. Let's be clear that contraception is available in many different ways. Sometimes a couple in that condition, in that situation, might access it through a spouses plan. But 90% of all health insurance plans include it, plus there's Title 10, plus there are clinics. It can hardly be said that this is unavailable. It is available very, very widely. The issue here is forcing the Church to provide it directly or indirectly in contravention with the Church's teaching. And that's what we don't want to do. It's one thing when tax dollars pay for it. It's another thing when Church dollars pay for it.

First, in case you didn't know, the "98% of Catholic women" figure cited by Cummings has been proven a false statement (link fixed 4/6/13) based on the study in question's own figures. Second, Bishop Lori dispels the suggestion that if religious institutions in particular don't offer contraceptives for any reason in their insurance plans, that will somehow prevent availability to contraceptives. Of course, the idea is nonsensical. Cummings also attempted to appeal to "Catholics" who might agree with his side as a tool to justify forcing opposed institutions to submit to the government's demand. He presented a list of "Catholic" colleges that offer contraception in their insurance plans. The problem with his reasoning was twofold: 1) Many of the colleges he cited either had been forced by local governments to do so or only offered contraception for the aforementioned medical reasons. He failed to grasp that contraception is the act of sterilizing the marital act, not taking a "contraceptive pill," per se. And 2) Rabbi Soloveichik had already pointed out the flaw in Cummings premise––the government can't intrude into religious internal affairs, pick a side, and force the other side to comply. The idea, as is the HHS mandate, a violation of the first amendment to freedom from the government's establish of and freedom of the people's free exercise of religion.

Mike Quigley (to Bishop Lori) - Do you support this same policy that you have as it relates to the private sector? In other words, do you think that a fast food restaurant person, because of his moral objection, say to his employees, I'm not gonna provide birth control as well, or a larger corporation?

Bishop Lori - You know, if there is real religious liberty in our country, then churches, even if there is disagreement within those churches, have the God-given right to run their own institutions and their own internal affairs according to their teachings. And if there should be discussion within that church, or even dissent within that church, it is not for the government to reach in, and to decide or weigh in for one side or the other. ... The fact of the matter is, a lot of people like to work for the Catholic Church, it's one I can speak for, and because they like to work for mission. And because they understand that when they sign up to work for a diocese or a Catholic school or for Catholic charities, what the teaching is. We have an organized Magisterium with the Pope and the bishops. And sometimes people agree with it, sometimes they don't, but they love the mission, and they come and work. We have no trouble retaining and attracting people to work for us. We provide great healthcare plans. But you know under these rules, we might have the best healthcare plan in the world, but if even one of these so-called preventive services were not in our plan, we'd be fined $2,000 per employee.

Quigley - Bishop, getting to the question, do you believe that a private sector company, if the owner or the board have moral objections, the same moral objections you do, which I respect, do you think they have the right to deny offering contraceptive services?

Bishop Lori - I think that that freedom obtains right now. It already obtains. They can already do that.

Quigley - We're talking about legislation, Bishop. There's legislation right now [presumably the Blunt amendment that since lost a 51-48 vote in the Senate] proposed right now that would extend this to the private sector.

[If I understand correctly, it would actually not extend the right to the private sector to not offer contraceptions in their health care plans but preserve that right already extant in the private sector]

Bishop Lori - We're saying that this legislation should not do so [i.e. I think he means take away that right]. We've been able to have that freedom now and the world has not fallen in upon itself.

Here, I'd just like to point out Quigley's concern does not even begin to address the concerns of religious liberty brought by the panel. The Church's teaching on birth control long antedates even the existence of the United States. To argue that basic, First Amendment freedom, should be taken away on the basis that a non-religious institution may follow suit failed to grasp the issue of freedom altogether. Quigley's premise is that all contraceptives are "medical" products necessary in all insurance plans, but he did not substantiate that premise.

Ann Marie Buerkle - So let's establish that for the record, despite this accommodation [she raises quoted fingers here], the rule hasn't been changed. And it was a verbal as you mentioned. Nothing was put in writing which is always of concern. But I want to now ask each one of you, how would you see this rule, that has not been changed, that violates conscience rights, how do you see that affecting the missions of each on of your churches?

Bishop Lori - First of all, it [i.e. the "accommodation"] does not remove the mandate and as a result it's still a great intrusion to the freedom of our churches. And besides that, we think it violates The Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it substantially burdens our religious freedom by forcing us indirectly, but nonetheless forcing us to provide the so-called preventive services in violation of our teaching and it also is simply unworkable because many religious entities are self-insured, and as a result, we are not only the employer but the insurer, and so then it directly involves us in providing the prescribed services.

¹For example, the FDA information sheet on the oral contraceptive Ella (ulipristal acetate) describes its mechanism of action this way: "When taken immediately before ovulation is to occur, ella postpones follicular rupture. The likely primary mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception is therefore inhibition or delay of ovulation; however, alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy." Essentially, that means one of the effective mechanisms of the drug is to alter the uterine wall such that the fertilized embryo, which the Church considers a human life, cannot implant into the uterine wall, thus killing it and expelling it from the body.

U.S. government candidly admits oral contraception increases risk of cancer in women

The National Cancer Institute has an informational web page called Oral Contraceptives and Cancer Risk: Questions and Answers. On that page is the startling summary*:

Because medical research suggests that some cancers depend on naturally occurring sex hormones for their development and growth, scientists have been investigating a possible link between OC use and cancer risk. Researchers have focused a great deal of attention on OC users over the past 40 years. This scrutiny has produced a wealth of data on OC use and the development of certain cancers, although results of these studies have not always been consistent. The risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers is reduced with the use of OCs, while the risk of breast and cervical cancers is increased.

And to top it off, the article later goes on to say oral contraceptives also increase the risk for liver cancer in women otherwise considered low risk.

We are all well aware now of the federal government's controversial demand to force religious and other entities to pay henceforth for all FDA-approved contraceptives desired by their insured employees, even if such action violates the consciences, the right of religious liberty, of those entities. What's more, the National Cancer Institute that made the statements above is part of the larger group of the National Institutes of Health––which in turn is part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

That's right. It seems the same HHS trying to force religious and other entities to pay for universal contraception in the name of "women's rights" also claims that hormonal oral contraceptives increase the risk of several forms of cancer in women.

I know I heard repeated statements during the February 16 House Committee on Oversight hearing by supporters of the current HHS mandate that oral contraceptives help reduce the risk of ovarian cancer according to medical studies. They did not mention the HHS' medical studies regarding the increased risk of breast, cervical, and liver cancer in women linked with use of oral contraceptives.

Are supporters of so-called "free" contraception so politically or socially eager to push this HHS mandate that they will ignore or bury the same HHS' claim that numerous studies link oral contraception to cancer in women? And that's just the scientific side of contraception, not the moral. (The HHS mandate itself is an issue of religious freedom.)

Have we been sold OC's medical benefits to ovarian cancer while being turned away from the detrimental effects of other cancers? It seems the people have been told, "Come into my fire, I promise you won't freeze."



*[Update Oct. 11, 2012] On March 21, 2012, it seems the NCI updated the page I quoted and removed the quote as it was worded. This blog post was originally made March 6. The current version at NCI still includes similar language to that which I quoted. It now reads: "Overall, however, the risks of endometrial and ovarian cancer appear to be reduced with the use of oral contraceptives, whereas the risks of breast, cervical, and liver cancer appear to be increased." To see an archived version of the NCI page with my original quote, visit this archive.org filing of the NCI page from July 2011.