Can a Pharmacist Refuse To Dispense Birth Control?

[johnnycatholic]

The catholic pharmacist can not in good conscience fill a prescription for birth control pills. The primary function and most common use for these medications is to facilitate a practice that the Church has deemed unallowable thus including the pharmacist in the sin. The church does teach that such medications may be used (and thus prescriptions may be filled in good conscience) for the treatment of medical problems if the intent is not to inhibit procreation even if that is a side effect, however birth control pills are abortifacient (that is they kill the embryo by preventing implantation). This effect is not just an impediment to procreation; it is the killing of an innocent human being i.e. abortion. When the encyclical that Pug quoted was written, this effect of b.c. pills was not known thus it was not addressed. If the pill is being used to treat a medical problem rather than to prevent pregnancy and the user is not going to be engaged in sexual relations, thereby creating the risk of potential death of a child, then the b.c. pills could be prescribed in good conscience.

I would allow the same privilege for a pharmacist of another faith the same freedom of conscience. It is only right!

 

[dafalax]

Everyone keeps arguing that BC pills have a place being used to “treat” symptoms and this justifies the death of countless innocent children. That is completely against Catholic teaching and against the ideals this country was founded on. We are not a nation who kills one group of people so that some others may be relieved of discomfort. I guarantee you if BC pills disappeared tomorrow, nobody would die, whereas thousands die everyday because their mothers of all ages make their wombs inhospitable for their children to continue developing. And furthermore, this is not a case where the pharmacist “thinks” there may be something better; anyone who does 30 seconds worth of looking on the all.org website KNOWS there are alternative treatments. The pharmacist who refuses to fill these prescriptions is doing so because he or she knows that no matter whether or not there is a “medical” reason for prescribing them, the user will in ALL LIKELIHOOD be using them ALSO to prevent pregnancy in an act of fornication that results in abortion. This reminds me alot of a story called “Those Who Walk Away from Omelas,” by Ursula K. LeGuin. We need to stand up and walk away from Omelas.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

MikeinSD:

Other faiths believe in their own divine laws which all humans are held accountable. Should civil law also be changed to accomodate other religions’ laws as well? Shopping on Saturday is a violation of the Sabbath. Should all stores be closed? Going to mosque in Fridays is a requirement. Shouldn’t the government construct mosques in every neighborhood to meet this requirement? Kali, the Hindu goddess of chaos, demands periodic sacrifices during the year. Why aren’t homes required to a shrine to her?

MikeinSD,

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. It is not subjective. It is not that which attempts to synthesize all belief systems.

We all share the same reality. In other words, my reality is the same as the buddhist farmer in China. Since truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality, and since we all share the same reality, then we must all share the same truth. In other words, truth is objective, and not dependent upon our beliefs, our feelings, our understanding, or majority vote, etc.

Beliefs are not the same as truth. Many people seem to get those two things mixed up. Instead, belief is that which we hold to be true. Our beliefs are derived from three sources: 1) experience, 2) testimony of others, 3) reason. Since well all have differing experiences, have find differing testimonies to be trustworthy, and have varying reasoning abilities, it is easy to see why there are so many different beliefs. However, one must always keep in mind that belief does not define truth. Nor does our experience, the testimonies we trust, nor does our reasoning capabilities define truth, but only help us to understand the objective truth that was there well before we began to beleive.

Our laws ought to be based not on everyones beliefs, but upon truth. If it is true that contraception is immoral, than our laws ought to prohibit it. No matter what all the belief systems assert, our laws ought to conform to the truth. Compromise in morality is the negation of truth.

Ecclesial laws, much like civil laws bring order to a community. Some are based upon immutable truth (Divine laws), but some are provisional, having to do with a specific time and or place. Ecclesial and civil laws which are merely provisional are not immutable. However, those aspects of ecclesial or civil law that are based upon immutable truth cannot be justly abrogated or dispensed from.

Contraception, according to Catholicism, is immoral by natural and Divine law, and as such is not something that can be abrogated or dispensed because that would be contrary to God’s will, which is sin. We should not be content with societal laws which contenance sin. It is not like which side of the road we should drive on, but moral law applies to all humanity.

According to other belief systems, contraception is OK. However, what is the truth? That is what we should base our laws upon, no matter the other false religions and belief systems. So, if I’m a Catholic, I hold that Catholicism is the truth. In those areas of ecclesial law which are based upon natural and Divine law, I am compelled to work toward establishing civil laws that conform to immutable truth, even if that is contrary to the false religion of the world. My goal is not compromise, but conformity to the will of God.

 

[johnnycatholic]

Posted by Listener: “Well, in the first place, there is something that these people didn’t tell you. The fact is that a very large percentage of fertilized eggs don’t manage to attach to the uterus when a woman is NOT on the pill. It is also true that the pill normally works by preventing ovulation. If break-through ovulation does occur, it is also possible for a baby to be born. I have heard of many cases where this has actually happened. Also, if you are aware of ovulation when you are practicing NFP, why on earth wouldn’t you be aware of breakthrough ovulation if it happened while on the pill?”

I don’t trust this info. Who is your source? Furthuremore N.F.P. trains you to spot ovulation. Most women do not know when this is occurring. See the Pope Paul VI Institute website.

Posted by Listener: " At least, if she is on the pill, there is a high probability that ovulation will be prevented, meaning that there could be no early abortion because there was no egg available to be fertilized."

If this is true then you are correct, but I would need a good CATHOLIC medical source.

Posted by Listener: “The Catholic Church approves of the use of the pill for medical reasons. A woman has absolutely no knowledge of whether or not an egg is being fertilized, and she has no control over whether a fertilized egg implants in her uterus or not. If a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions for the pill, he is not doing his job, and he is being more Catholic than the Pope.”

The pharmacist is trying to do the right thing. Now you’re the one who is being judgmental. As I posted before we know more on the subject now than when the encyclical was written. See the pharmacists for life website.
or all.org they have a good deal more info on this subject. Furthermore, if the woman is on b.c. for medical reasons she should refrain from sex. There is a differece between an embryo not implanting naturally (i.e. child dying naturally) and directly causing it by using b.c. pills (i.e. murder).If your info is correct then the woman who has endometriosis should refrain from intercourse as well since it to would result in the death of a child.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Both are Divine Law…no??

No. The OT does not allow abortion.

Divine law consists of what is revealed by God, either by supernatural revelation (e.g. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition), or by natural revelation (eg. “known from the things that are”).

Within Divine Law, there are provisional laws and immutable laws. For example, eating only kosher meats is a provisional law. It was important for a time and place. The prohibition against adultery is an immutable law, which is binding on all, forever.

Ecclesial and civil laws cannot be contrary to Divine immutable law. We do not have the freedom to sin, to act contrary to God’s will. Sin cannot be countenanced by the faithful.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So what does that mean for the Jews???

It means their ecclesial law which allows abortion is contrary to the truth, contrary to God’s will.

 

[Karin]

itsjustdave1988:
No. The OT does not allow abortion.

Divine law consists of what is revealed by God, either by supernatural revelation (e.g. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition), or by natural revelation (eg. “known from the things that are”).

Within Divine Law, there are provisional laws and immutable laws. For example, eating only kosher meats is a provisional law. It was important for a time and place. The prohibition against adultery is an immutable law, which is binding on all, forever.

Ecclesial and civil laws cannot be contrary to Divine immutable law. We do not have the freedom to sin, to act contrary to God’s will. Sin cannot be countenanced by the faithful. So the Talmud the Jewish Holy Book which is the Catholic Bible OT are not the same?

 

[Karin]

itsjustdave1988:
It means their ecclesial law which allows abortion is contrary to the truth, contrary to God’s will.
So what you and others are saying is the the Jews are wrong…??

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**

Yes and God’s law is in the OT or the Talmud

**

Firstly, God’s law is in the OT. The Talmud is not divine revelation, even according to Judaism. It is a Bible commentary. It is also likened to our canon law. It is not Divine.

Secondly, our laws should be based upon truth. If we belief Catholicism is true, then despite what the Talmud says, we ought to be working toward a society that conforms and does not contradict Catholic and Divine truth. We ought not to concern ourselves with what other false religions consider the truth. Let them lobby for falsity. As for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord.

 

[Karin]

itsjustdave1988:

Firstly, God’s law is in the OT.

Ok glad I got something right

itsjustdave1988:

The Talmud is not divine revelation, even according to Judaism. It is a Bible commentary. It is also likened to our canon law. It is not Divine. .

OK…following you so far.

itsjustdave1988:

Secondly, our laws should be based upon truth. If we belief Catholicism is true, then despite what the Talmud says, we ought to be working toward a society that conforms and does not contradict Catholic and Divine truth

. We ought not to concern ourselves with what other false religions consider the truth. Let them lobby for falsity. As for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord.
OK this is where I am confused(see part underlined in your post)… you are saying all laws should be Catholic based and who care if not everyone is Catholic? What happens to the people that do not want to be Catholic or follow Catholic teaching…do they not have a right to their religious freedoms?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So what you and others are saying is the the Jews are wrong…??

***Absolutely!!! ***Are you Catholic??? If so, how can truth contradict truth? If the Catholic religion is true, meaning, the doctrines expounded within the Catechism of the Catholic Church corresponds to reality (as every Catholic should believe), and Judaism contradicts Catholic truth (which it does), then JUDAISM MUST BE FALSE.

Rays of truth in non-Catholic religions are helpful insofar as they indicate the source of light. What is the source of light in the “rays of truth” in non-Catholic relgions? Jesus!!! So, one can, like the Magi (magicians) of the NT, hold to a false religion which nonetheless has rays of truth, and insofar as those follow that light to Jesus, then such religions can be provisional pathways to the truth. However, insofar as any religion asserts that there is a way of salvation apart from Jesus Christ and faithful obedience to His Divine will, then they are pathways away from truth, away from the light of the world, away from eternal life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Karin:
Ok glad I got something right

OK…following you so far.

OK this is where I am confused(see part underlined in your post)… you are saying all laws should be Catholic based and who care if not everyone is Catholic? What happens to the people that do not want to be Catholic or follow Catholic teaching…do they not have a right to their religious freedoms?

No. We say Catholics are bound by the teaching of the Church. Therefore a Catholic who materially aids someone else to do what the Church considers wrong has committed a sin.

We further say the Constitution prohibits passing laws that force people to violate their religious scruples.

Would you accept a law that forced Jews to eat pork?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So the Talmud the Jewish Holy Book which is the Catholic Bible OT are not the same?

No, they are not the same. The Talmud is a rabbinic document that was not complete until 2nd century AD. In fact, the Hebrew Bible and the Catholic OT are not the same. They lack seven inspired books and several inspired portions of Daniel and Esther.

 

[Karin]

***Absolutely!!! ***Are you Catholic??? If so, how can truth contradict truth? If the Catholic religion is true, meaning, the doctrines expounded within the Catechism of the Catholic Church corresponds to reality (as every Catholic should believe), and Judaism contradicts Catholic truth (which it does), then JUDAISM MUST BE FALSE. .

First I am not Catholic nor am I Jewish. I must share this bit of insite with the Orthodox Jews in my town though…that they and their faith is wrong.
**Does this concept not contradict what the Vatican/CHURCH says about the Jewish Faith? **
***Catholic Catechism839 **“Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, *the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”
**

*Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8) …

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12) …

No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)

*http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_…-aetate_en.html

 

[Karin]

vern humphrey:

No. We say Catholics are bound by the teaching of the Church. Therefore a Catholic who materially aids someone else to do what the Church considers wrong has committed a sin.

Thank you Vern…this clarifies things!
vern humphrey:

We further say the Constitution prohibits passing laws that force people to violate their religious scruples.
It has been a few years since I studied this so I will take your word for it (that it is true)!!

Would you accept a law that forced Jews to eat pork?

As to accepting a law that made Jews eat pork…is this an AMERICAN LAW or CHURCH LAW?

 

[Karin]

itsjustdave1988:

No, they are not the same. The Talmud is a rabbinic document that was not complete until 2nd century AD. In fact, the Hebrew Bible and the Catholic OT are not the same. They lack seven inspired books and several inspired portions of Daniel and Esther.

**Ok then…a rabbinic document?? And the Torah is not the same as the OT either then I guess??? **

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

---

 

[Karin]

Other suggested reading regarding the Jews and CHristians…

WHY THE CHRISTIAN FAITH NEEDS JUDAISM
Card. Roger Etchegaray

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Karin:
OK this is where I am confused(see part underlined in your post)… you are saying all laws should be Catholic based and who care if not everyone is Catholic? What happens to the people that do not want to be Catholic or follow Catholic teaching…do they not have a right to their religious freedoms?

Let me help clarify… Religious freedom according to Catholic doctrine is not freedom to act contrary to God’s will. Nobody has the “religious freedom” to sin. Instead, religious freedom means all humanity, by virtue of their human dignity, has a right not to be forced against their will to believe and worship contrary to the one true Catholic religion, or to be forced against their will to believe and worship according to the true Catholic religion.

Nonetheless, according to St. Paul, although the pagan Romans did not have the benefit of OT, they were without excuse.

Rom 1:19-20 “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”

Later, he states that the moral precepts are written in their hearts by God…

Rom 2:14-16 "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

Thus, what is expected of civil law is that it conforms to the moral Divine law.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Divine law is divided into civil, ceremonial and moral precepts. Pagans could not know the civil and ceremonial precepts of the OT, which are provisional and only applied to certain people, not all people. However, the moral precepts are written in the hearts of all mankind and all mankind is held bound by God to the moral Divine precepts. Nobody has the “religous liberty” to violate these precepts. Thus, civil law must conform and cannot contradict moral Divine precepts.

According to Catholic doctrine, the moral precept which proscribes contraception is not a civil or ceremonial provisional law which is only binding in a certian time and place, but is among the moral Divine precepts revealed by natural law, which applies to all mankind forever. Thus, the moral precepts can be known if one listened to that which God writes into every heart. Which is why even some non-Catholics assert that contraception is immoral. However, some are not listening to what God has written in their hearts.

Catholic Encyclopedia - Moral aspects of Divine Law

Divine Law is that which is enacted by God and made known to man through revelation. We distinguish between the Old Law, contained in the Pentateuch, and the New Law, which was revealed by Jesus Christ and is contained in the New Testament. The Divine Law of the Old Testament, or the Mosaic Law, is commonly divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral precepts. The civil legislation regulated the relations of the people of God among themselves and with their neighbours; the ceremonial regulated matters of religion and the worship of God; the moral was a Divine code of ethics…

Christ is the author of the New Law. He claimed and exercised supreme legislative authority in spiritual matters from the beginning of His public life until His Ascension into heaven. In Him the Old Law had its fulfilment and attained its chief purpose… When the Gospel had been duly promulgated the civil and ceremonial precepts of the Law of Moses became not only useless, but false and superstitious, and thus forbidden.
It was otherwise with the moral precepts of the Mosaic Law. The Master expressly taught that the observance of these, inasmuch as they are prescribed by nature herself, is necessary for salvation … The Catholic Church by virtue of the commission given to her by Christ is the Divinely constituted interpreter of the Divine Law of both the Old and the New Testament.
(newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Ok then…a rabbinic document?? And the Torah is not the same as the OT either then I guess??? **

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

No. The Torah is the first 5 books of the OT. There’s more to the Hebrew Bible than the Torah, right? And yet if you compared the Hebrew Bible to the Catholic OT, you would find that the Hebrew Bible has less books, a smaller version of Daniel and a smaller version of Esther.

 

[johnnycatholic]

Karin and itsjustdave should stay on the topic at hand.