Treading Lightly on the Sacred Ground

"Do not come nearer; rather take the shoes from thy feet,
thou art standing on holy ground." (Ex 3:5)

The spiritual life is sacred ground, but often times we tread clumsily and heavily as if it were not. My own experience is that those of us who spend their time studying religion, history, philosophy, literature, theology, etc... sometimes fail to manifest the same sensitivity and subtlety that they have in their own fields of study when it comes to talking about an individual's spiritual experiences.

For each of us the spiritual life differs vastly. I should not expect my life and my experiences to answer the questions of your life. The way I resolve my issues is not going to be the way that you resolve your issues and for all the right reasons. What is amazing, however,  is how similar our experiences are when we can uncover them. If we can boil them down to just their essence, we see great similarities between what is happening in each of our lives.

What is most difficult is developing the subtlety to distinguish between non-spiritual and spiritual events in our lives. For example, the feeling of hunger is a non-spiritual thing. My stomach is empty, it pangs for want of food, and I can hear a growling. On a spiritual level, I can move beyond my body's natural appetite to be fed. In a negative way, I can begin to despise the causes of my hunger and curse God for not providing for me. In a positive way, I can sublimate that hunger into a hunger for justice or grace. I can offer this temporal suffering out of love in atonement for my own sins. Whatever I do at that level, it is no longer a matter a my corporeal body.

Too often, though, we confuse non-spiritual affects with spiritual ones. Beethoven once said, "Music is the mediator between the spiritual and sensual life." Because of music's power to influence us on a physiological level, the place where the affect becomes spiritual is difficult to distinguish, and let us not forget that non-spiritual experiences really do influence our spiritual experiences.

This is why silence—real, true silence—is so necessary for us. We need to make time to sit with God in peace and quiet, listening to Him or listening for Him. Every outside influence can confuse us about what is spiritual and what is non-spiritual. So, in order to hear God we need to stop and draw clear lines of distinction between God's voice and everyone else's.

To do this we need to reflect on our day. We need to stop and reflect on the moments throughout the day where we made decisions and what things influenced the decisions we made. Were those influencers spiritual or non-spiritual? Were they ordered, reasoned, and directed toward God, or directed toward me and my own desires?

You can say, "who has time for that?" But that is already the wrong question. Just like every other relationship in you life, you make the time for the ones you believe are most important. If you cannot make five minutes for God, you have no business having any friends.

The prayer of the Church is a great place to start. In particular, I would encourage praying Night Prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours. It specifically sets aside time for an examination of conscience, and is a good place to start for thoughtful reflective prayer that incorporates scripture. It will help you develop a habit of setting aside time to stop and spend in conversation with the most important relationship in your life.

So, before you start giving out spiritual advice to friends and family, develop a deep prayer life. If you develop a prayer life that incorporates silence and the written word of God, you will start to see more clearly those lines of distinction. When you can see those, you will not be able to do anything but tread lightly.

The History of Henry VIII: an opportunity taken...

"To be deep in history is to 
cease to be a Protestant."
~ Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman

Last week I wrote about an opportunity missed. This week, I seized an opportunity.

Yesterday, for the first time in months, I paid for a haircut. I am a fan of traditional barbershops, and the only traditional barbershop I know of in the area is about 45 minutes away. It is the same barber shop where I got my hair cut the day before my wedding.

The gentlemen there are always professional and personable. This time, as I was sitting in the barber chair, when I was asked what I do for a living. It is usually a conversation I do not enjoy having. When I say I do theology, I usually get one of two responses. The first is something to the effect of, "I don't see how anyone couldn't believe in God." The second is usually, "Oh..." and then silence.

This time the conversation was quite different. I was asked where I work. I told him that I do not currently have a job, and that finding a job in this area is difficult. I said that as a Catholic it is not like I can just go out and start my own church. To this, he replied, "Maybe God's telling you that it's time to join a different church."

Ah! Yes! An opportunity to evangelize!

He continued saying, "Maybe if you were Episcopal you could be a priest and have a wife, I know it's difficult to do something like that if you're Catholic."

I asked him how much he knew about the history of the Episcopal church. He admitted that he didn't know much. I explained to him that the Episcopal church was an extension of the Anglican church in America. It maintained the liturgy of the Church of England and its structure. I then asked how much he knew about the Church of England. He acknowledged that he did not know anything.

King Henry VIII

I explained to him that the Church of England was part of the Catholic Church until the rule of Henry VIII. Henry ultimately decided to proclaim himself the head of the Church in England, because the Church refused to annul his marriage. I asked him if he thought that was a good enough reason to leave the Church.

He admitted it was not and we continued to talk. I expressed as subtlely as possible the idea that the more you know the history of Christianity the more certain you are that the Catholic Church is the only true Church. I did this from my own perspective, saying, "I can't imagine being any Christian denomination. The more I've learned the history of any denomination of Christianity, the more certain I am that their reasons for separation are unfounded and it leads to error. So, naturally I wouldn't consider leaving the Church myself just so I could get a job."

We continued talking but at this point he seemed to concede that my decision was well formed and he asked if there were other ways that I could help the Catholic Church. He made several suggestions, but nothing that I have not already thought of and tried. I expressed my own desire to work in college campus ministry again, and my love for working with that age group. He seemed interested in what I had to say and I thanked him for the opportunity to talk and for the wonderful haircut.

It was a great opportunity, and I am glad I took it. Now, it is up to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love.
Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created.
And You shall renew the face of the earth.

 O, God, who by the light of the Holy Spirit, did instruct the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Holy Spirit we may be truly wise and ever enjoy His consolations, Through Christ Our Lord, Amen.

Wedding Feast: An opportunity missed

I slept in recently on a Sunday, not too late, but late enough to have to go to a parish other than my own. My wife and I arrived a few minutes late, and to make matters worse, there wasn't a parking spot in sight.

The parking dilemma has happened before (not having been late), and it was because that Sunday was the "Children's Mass." So naturally I was cursing the concept of a "so-called-Children's Mass" on my way in asking, "Why isn't every Mass a Children's Mass? Why isn't every Mass an 'Everybody Mass'!?"

This is one of those moments when you feel like slapping yourself in the face: I walked in at the start of the Gloria and could not find a single seat open. I was not too worried about finding a seat since I had brought my pregnant wife with me, and I knew there had to be at least one gentleman in the place who would make some room for us. But as we were scanning for seats, I noticed two things. First, everyone was wearing there Sunday's best, which is sadly unusual. Secondly, there were a lot of children in the first set of pews wearing little suits and white dresses. *Slap* First Communions! "I'm sorry, Lord, I take it all back."

My frustration turned to joy almost immediately; there are few things as beautiful as witnessing a First Communion. The Collect was said, and the readings were read. We sat knowing what the homily would be about, namely, First Communion.

Fr. Bob (not his real name), is one of those priests who sincerely loves God and His Church, but is not the most 'liturgically' or 'theologically minded.' After finishing the Gospel, he kissed it set it down, and walked down into the nave. Pacing back and forth he asked the children, "Why are you all dressed up?"

To which one replied, "We're getting married."

A roar of laughter erupted and Father said, "I hope there's an equal number of boys and girls." He then proceeded to correct the child and explain that they were receiving the Eucharist for the first time. And what he said was very encouraging and good.

I feel, however, that missed an opportunity. That whole parish was rocking with laughter to the embarrassment of one child. Here was the perfect opportunity to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. In the midst of the laughter he could have said, "In a way, that's true."

Certainly not every child was preparing to marry another child, but in that moment, they were preparing to enter into a union of one body with Christ, which is itself very much like the union of a husband and wife.

Stop and think for a bit, if you do not already know what I am talking about. In the Mass the priest repeats the words of St. John the Baptist saying, "Behold Him, who takes away the sins of the world" followed by "Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This second text is an allusion to Rev. 19:9 which says, "Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb."

There is a marriage taking place between the Lamb and His bride, the Church, who we traditionally call the Bride of Christ. We tend to forget this aspect of Communion, because we no longer follow the traditional order of the Sacraments of Initiation—Baptism first, Confirmation second, then Eucharist last—with children who have received infant Baptism.

The difficulty is that Communion is not the marriage itself, but rather the consummation of the marriage that takes place in Confirmation. The analogy is that we enter into a solemn relationship, much like betrothal, in our Baptism. We swear our fidelity to our beloved. In Confirmation, we perfect that promise made in our Baptism and receive the necessary graces to carry out the duties of our perfected relationship. In this way, Confirmation is more like the rite of Matrimony. Furthermore, Communion is the full expression of that love between us and Christ. It is an expression of fecund self-giving. It is deeply intimate and is more like the consummation of marriage. It can and should be repeated as an expression of love that is life-giving. Baptism and Confirmation, much like betrothal and the marriage rite, cannot be repeated because they carry with them a permanence, a solemn promise.

Now, obviously not all of this can be explained in depth to a seven-year-old, who would lack the comprehension of the full sense of the analogy, but nevertheless, it ought to be explained in part that we unite ourselves to Christ by this Sacrament and in doing so we express our mutual love for each other.

I should note that the reception of Confirmation is not restricted to those who have received their First Communion. Archbishop Aquila, while serving as the Bishop of Fargo, re-established the order in that diocese.

St. Thomas Aquinas Answers the Question: Do We Worship Christ's Cross on Good Friday?

God love us, this issue seems to remain unanswered in most parishes. The more practical question that pops up is whether we use a bare cross or the crucifix for veneration of Good Friday.  Some, like Fr. Z, seem to think that "the point of Good Friday is to venerate Christ Crucified: Christus Crucifixus," and that excludes and mere veneration of the the Holy Cross of our salvation. Others, who care for the rubrics as much as Fr. Z, read the texts and say, "It says cross not crucifix."

One question that needs to be asked is what kind of veneration are we offering to the cross during the Good Friday service? Another is whether that kind of veneration can belong to the cross simply or if it necessitates the image of Christ Crucified?

The Church has long tradition of very clear language that only God is to be worshipped with the latria." In fact, the Catholic Church distinguishes between three forms of veneration: latria, hyperdulia, and dulia. St. Thomas says:
adoration of "

Reverence is due to God on account of His excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to dulia, and we shall speak of it further on (103).

In Q. 103, St. Thomas continues:

Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the lordship of God. It is, moreover, a species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master, dulia being the Greek for servitude.

Now, hyperdulia is reserved for Mary Mother of God. It is nothing more than the highest reverence to any creature. Nevertheless, even hyperdulia falls short of the homage paid to God. Naturally, the question arises in the Summa Theologica, whether we ought to worship Christ's humanity with the adoration of latria, for Christ's body is a created thing. The entirety of his humanity is creaturely. And yet His humanity is united to the Divine Nature by His Person. The cause of the honor due to Christ, in His humanity, is the dignity of His Person, and therefore, it follows that Christ's humanity is worshipped with the adoration of latria (III, Q. 25, a. 1-2).

The veneration of Christ's humanity can, however, be thought of in more than one way. In as much as it is His humanity, it is adored with latria. If his humanity is venerated on account of its perfection by the gifts of grace, it is not the Person, and therefore not the Godhead, that is being paid homage, but the perfection of humanity, which is nevertheless praiseworthy. On this veneration of His perfect humanity, St. Thomas says:

And then thus understood as distinct from the Word of God, it should be adored with the adoration of "dulia"; not any kind of "dulia," such as is given to other creatures, but with a certain higher adoration, which is called "hyperdulia"... Because the adoration of "latria" is not given to Christ's humanity in respect of itself; but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united, by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father (III, Q. 25, a. 2).

Now, if Christ's humanity is worshipped with the adoration of latria by virtue of its unity with the Godhead, then what about an image of Christ? Certainly the image is not united to the Godhead, and therefore, in itself is not deserving of latria. There is, however, as St. Thomas puts it, a twofold movement of the mind towards and image. There first, of course, toward the image as a thing. If a statue, the mind moves toward it first as a thing of plaster or stone. There is another movement that the mind makes towards and image, namely insofar as it is the image of something else. According to this second movement of the mind, the movement does not terminate in the stone and plaster of the statue, but rather, it terminates in the thing imaged.

In as much as it is an image, reverence is due to it. The reverence shown to it as image terminates not in it as a thing of plaster or stone, but rather in the person imaged. St. Thomas says:

It follow [sic] therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an image. Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of "latria," it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of "latria" (III, Q. 25, a. 3).

This then, brings us to the matter of the Cross of Christ, which we venerate on Good Friday.  St. Thomas is clear that reverence of any kind is due to persons and not to things. The cross is simply not a person, and so it would seem that no reverence whatsoever is due to it. This, however, is not the conclusion to which St. Thomas comes. By the subtlety of his intellect St. Thomas is able to find the distinction that we seem to fail to grasp on our own. Things are reverenced by reason a rational nature in two ways (emphasis mine):

First, inasmuch as it represents a rational nature: secondly, inasmuch as it is united to it in any way whatsoever. In the first way men are wont to venerate the king's image; in the second way, his robe. And both are venerated by men with the same veneration as they show to the king.

In an age where monarchs are few and far between, let alone our chance encounters with them, it becomes difficult to grasp this. If we look at our own personal relations maybe we can come to a similar conclusion. The person who carries a picture of his family or spouse and kisses it from time to time, is no different than the person who venerates the kings image. The young man who has received his dead father's pocket watch and carries it with him everywhere, is no different than the one who reverences the king's robe. The same care that he shows to that watch is a love that terminates in his father who he associates so closely with it.

So, as concerns any relic of the True Cross, St. Thomas says:

If, therefore, we speak of the cross itself on which Christ was crucified, it is to be venerated by us in both ways--namely, in one way in so far as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended thereon; in the other way, from its contact with the limbs of Christ, and from its being saturated with His blood. Wherefore in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of "latria." And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, as to the Crucified Himself.

This is why Fr. Z can say, "If there is no relic of the True Cross available for veneration, then the Crucifix should be used." There is a greater tradition of veneration of the True Cross and to the Crucifix as a substitute, but St. Thomas does not leave it at that. He continues:

But if we speak of the effigy of Christ's cross in any other material whatever--for instance, in stone or wood, silver or gold--thus we venerate the cross merely as Christ's image, which we worship with the adoration of "latria," as stated above (Article 3).

So, whether it be a relic of the True Cross, a crucifix, or a bare cross, the adoration of latria is offered. To the True Cross latria is offered in a twofold way, by representation and by way of it being united to Christ by contact. Both the crucifix and the bare cross are only worshipped with the adoration of latria in as much as they are images of Christ.

Since there is no difference in the worship offered, it would seem that the best way to answer this question would be to ask whether in the rite of the Veneration of the Cross, we are called to venerate Christ or His Cross. It seems clear in the rite, that the veneration is of the cross itself, as the means by which our salvation is effected, is what we venerate in as much as it is associated with Christ. Therefore, since there is no image of Christ Crucified without a cross, it would seem appropriate to venerate either the a crucifix or, out of necessity, a bare cross will suffice. By kissing the cross or the feet of Christ, the worship offered is the same—latria—and to terminates in the same Person imaged—the Word of God, Christ.

When God speaks we need to respond with proper spiritual grammar...

Every good sentence is made up of a subject and a predicate. In two words, God summed up who He is: I am. His own words express to us the unfathomable depth of His being, He is. Subject = God. Predicate = is. It is a full sentence, and yet in English it is as short as sentences get. It is ironic that the eternal, the infinite, the all in all, can express His existence with such brevity, and yet, it seems, in our finitude our attempts at expressing ourselves is limitless.

Many of the problems we face today arise from our inability to recognize who we are and express that identity properly. Our tendency is to try and define ourselves according to what we do. Our self-perspective is most often a description of what we do. Our identity, as we see it, is primarily based on those actions we do most often. For example, "I am a runner"or "I am a photographer." There is no doubt, that what you do has an impact on who you are, but I do not think that we would ever answer, "Who are you?," with, "I am a runner."

When confronted with the question, "Who are you?" our tendency is to give our name. "Who," you see, is not only an interrogative pronoun, but also personal, like "whom." Unlike "whom," "who" is subjective, and when asked, "who" is searching for a personal subject. I become the subject, and my name designates me among any number of persons.

What's in a name?

Names are interesting, because they work in a similar way no matter what culture you call your own. In some cultures, family names comes first and an individual's last, which may seem strange until you consider the way we scientifically name species. Some cultures have generational names, which every family member of a specific generation has in their name. Sometimes within Western culture, the only part of the name which distinguishes one individual from another is the suffix Jr. or some number. Whatever the tradition, the name always implies some relationship.

My name for instance, is made up of a first, middle, and last name. Starting from the generic and moving to the specific, my last name is 'hyphenated': Córdova y Muenzberg. Already my ethnicity is presenting itself. Like many Americans today, I am of mixed heritage. I am half-Hispanic and half-German. The Spanish word "y" means "and." So, if I translated my name it would be Córdova "and" Muenzberg. My last name refers to both my mother's family line and my father's. In this way, I have already situated myself within the context of a family from whom I have received these names. Both of my last names refer to the specific region from which my families hail, namely Münzenberg, Germany and Córdoba, Spain. These names then place me within the greater context of my origins.

My first name and middle name specify me further. There are at least two other "Córdova y Muenzbergs" out there that I know of (my brothers), and to keep others from confusing us, we were given first and middle names. Our first names distinguish us enough, and it seems that our middle names are excessive. But as Christians, we find more value in names than simply designation. The "Christian name" was the name given to invoke the patronage of some Christian saint, which only further implies more relationships. Some names, first and middle, are one combined patronage. Others imply a patronage taken at Baptism and another at Confirmation. Some folks incorporate a confirmation name into their middle name later on. Whatever the tradition, names are more than practical distinctions.

Wisdom is good spiritual grammar.

Wisdom is a science of judgment. It is the ability to apprehend the truth or goodness in relationships. For example, the wise man knows what would be the most suitable path to follow. He does not need to have experienced both paths, but he does need sufficient information about the paths. Wisdom requires the ability to recognize things for what they are and how they compare. There is no wisdom in taking the only path that lies in front of you. Is one path narrow and difficult while the other is wide and easy? If so, it would seem wise to take the wide and easy road. Wisdom, however, looks at the path with relation to its end, and not just in relation to the other path. If you want to get to paradise, you would not take the wide and easy road, for it leads in the opposite direction. 

The wise man not only knows what to do, but also knows himself. Socrates, for example, lived his life recognizing that he only knew what he did not know. His great realization was that he was actually wise in his ignorance, and that a failure to acknowledge our ignorance and act accordingly leads to folly. Acting according to the realization of what we do not know, however, leads to wisdom. 

This wisdom starts with that same self-knowledge of our ignorance, but in relation to something higher. It was not that Socrates believed that there was no truth, the self-contradiction of that statement was obvious to him. But like a wise man, he knew that in order to get to paradise he had to travel down a narrow and difficult path. In all his encounters, he seems not to be able to find anyone who knows anything. Until, that is, he met Diotima, whose philosophy he recalls. Diotima knows love, and her philosophy of love parallels Socrates' pursuit of truth. 

Both Diotima and Socrates seem to recognize that there is some end for which they are striving that does not exist in material things. For Socrates, it is Truth itself, and for Diotima, it is Beauty itself. Ultimately, both exist in the Divine as their source. 

If we are going to make any wise decision, we need to be able to compare things to our last end and to their origin, which both, as Catholics, we call "God." 

Concluding thoughts:

Going back to the original topic, God reveals Himself in His creation. Creation is itself a sort of scripture. It is like a handwritten copy of what He first spoke that we seem to have dropped into a puddle, and now the ink is running. It is difficult to read but it is our own fault not His. Nevertheless, God's grammar is not illogical. There is a right way to speak and a wrong way. For God, every living thing has its proper place in His eternal sentence. 

In order to understand His revelation, we have to grasp His grammar. We cannot confuse subjects and objects; "who" and "whom" are used properly in the Spiritual Grammar that God speaks. It is up to us to understand which is which. We have to look at everything in the proper perspective and realize that things have particular relationships with each other and with God. 

Knowing a things name, helps us to recognize its relations. Christian names often times give us a way to relate to God. My name, "Abram," means exalted father. In one way, I can strive to fulfill my name, and in another way, I can strive to relate to God as my exalted Father. By aligning myself with my end in such a way allows my name to become more than practical. It allows me to identify my relation to God more easily. 

I find that my name fits well with my perceived relation to God. I find it quite providential that my name reflects a spiritual dynamic that exists between me and my Creator. No matter what our name is, we should identify ourselves primarily as an individual in a relationship with God. When God has the priority in all our relationships we start to put together grammatically correct spiritual sentences. We start viewing the world according to the manner in which God intended it be revealed.

In the end, we can read God's love letter to us all we want and praise ourselves for being loved, or we can respond to that word with words of our own. In our actions, external and internal, we can express to God, using His language, our own affection and desire to be one with Him.

As practice for the spiritual grammar, maybe we should practice our English grammar. It can only help. 

What Is Missing From Our Conversation About the Morning After Pill

On February 21 it was reported that the German Bishops of Trier released a statement announcing that emergency contraception known as the "Morning-after Pill" (MAP) can be used in cases of rape if it does not induce abortion. Politically progressive readers heard this news and rallied around these bishops for conceding to the use of artificial contraceptives. Critics of the bishops jumped at the chance to attack these bishops for the same thing or allowing a pill that does not exist, since the current MAPs on the market are all known abortifacients (abortion-causing). The problem is that hardly anyone is using clear language in this discussion. It seems at times like no one is making necessary distinctions. So, for the sake of shedding light on the matter, educating the masses about authentic Church teaching, and explaining the ethics behind the bishops' decision, I want to explain the components involved.

Church teaching:

Rape is never acceptable.

It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them. (CCC 2356)

Steven Mosher, explains:

In the strictest sense, rape is not a sexual act at all, but is rather a violent assault where the victim has the right to self-defense. To put it bluntly, the rapist has no right to have his sperm fertilize the eggs of the woman he has raped. It is therefore permissible to prevent his sperm from doing so by removing them from the body of a woman who has been thus violated.

Mosher goes on to qualify this statement by saying, "If there were a pill that acted only to prevent conception in cases of rape, then it would be licit to use it." The assumption he is making is that because of certain effects of MAP it prevents use in every case. What the bishops have said is that MAP is acceptable in order to prevent conception without causing abortion. So, breaking it down scientifically, MAP is an abortifacient in as much as it could possibly prevent the implantation of an already conceived embryo, thereby preventing "pregnancy" by medical standards. This would amount to "abortion" by the Church's standards. The Church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception, in other words, at fertilization of the ovum by the sperm. What is present after this moment is a human person and is due all the rights and dignity of a human person. The prevention of the implantation of the embryo is not the only effect of MAP. MAPs can also prevent the ovulation of the ovum so that conception cannot take place. So, MAPs work in two ways, by either preventing ovulation or by preventing implantation. Only one method of contraception out of these two is morally illicit in the case of rape. As Mosher accurately pointed out, the rapist has no right to have his sperm fertilize the eggs. To use the language of Bl. John Paul II's Theology of the Body and Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, the marital act has already been negated by the removal of any unitive meaning in the case of rape and does not require, for that reason, an openness to procreation. Therefore, contracepting by preventing ovulation is not a sin against purity or the Sacrament of Matrimony. MAPs are never acceptable once a woman has ovulated, because of its abortifacient effects. If we can establish that a rape victim has not yet ovulated, an MAP can be acceptably and licitly used to prevent conception.

The proper procedure:

There are a couple different methods by which we can establish whether or not a woman has ovulated. First, practitioners of Natural Family Planning (NFP) keep and monitor certain aspects of a woman's cycle and can, with great accuracy, know when a woman has or is going to ovulate. So, NFPers out there are in a better position to request MAP if the very unfortunate and heinous crime of rape should ever occur. Secondly, knowing the exact date of the start of a woman's last cycle can also help establish the approximate date of ovulation. Ovulation usually occurs within a certain period of time after the start of a woman's cycle. This sort of dating is not as accurate as NFP and the next method I am going to mention is also more accurate and should be preferred over this method. Finally, when a woman ovulates, her body has an accompanying fluctuation in lute inizing hormone (LH). A simple urine test can determine the presence of LH. If LH levels are elevated then it can be established that the victim has ovulated, and it cannot be established whether or not the ovum has yet been fertilized. The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) has outlined four essential conditions that must be met before administering an MAP. They are:

1. The woman is not already pregnant from prior, freely-chosen sexual activity.
2. The woman has been sexually assaulted.
3. The woman has not yet ovulated (i.e. has not released an egg from her ovary into the fallopian tube where it could be fertilized by the attacker’s sperm).
4. The morning-after pill can reasonably be expected to prevent her from ovulating.

It should also be noted that spermicidal washes are not abortifacient and also permissible in cases of rape. Within just hours of the incident, sperm may have already traveled into the fallopian tubes, and spermicidal washes are limited in their efficacy, further complicated by the duration of time that sperm can survive in the body. Spermicidal washes may prevent further sperm from moving past the cervix. However, even in cases where ovulation has occurred, physicians may deem it appropriate to minimize the chances for conception by administering spermicides. It may even be beneficial to administer a spermicide as early as possible even before determining ovulation, if rape has been established. Therefore, the only condition that must be met for spermicide to be administered is sexual assault.

Concluding thoughts:

The majority of articles on the bishops' statement have not sufficiently made clear the distinction between preventing conception, preventing ovulation, and preventing implantation. The bishops were not wrong in issuing their statement and enforcing Church teaching in response to the unfortunate event that occurred where a rape victim was turned away. Any hospital that refuses to help a victim of such an abominable crime should be ashamed and does not deserve the title of Catholic. Beyond medical procedures, a variety of assistance ought to be offered including counseling and legal advice. The physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual trauma suffered by sexual assault victims far exceeds anything imaginable. Caring for them is essential to our Catholic identity. So also, however, is caring for the most defenseless person involved, the child conceived through rape. Protecting their rights and dignity is as essential to our Catholic identity as assisting the rape victim. A child conceived be rape is an innocent bystander, and he should never become a “second victim” through abortion. Providing women who conceive a child by rape with full and loving support during and after their pregnancy is also part of our Catholic identity, and the only proper and sensible response to such insensible acts. For more on MAP in cases of rape, click here.