Abp. Chaput either assumes that there is a hormonal or other agent that can actually prevent fertilization post-intercourse, or he's simply theorizing one for discussion purposes.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no hormonal contraceptive, "emergency" or otherwise, that is guaranteed always to prevent ovulation/fertilization, and never to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. To me, discussion of the ethical issues involved is misleading unless the biological facts are correctly presented.
BINGO. You really get it, C. I think His Eminence was not fully aware of these implications unless something revolutionary has come out in the last few months. If he is going by the older, standard practices used, he may not know about the CMA and its view of this.
They are an ethical group of medical practioners who have quite a Board of Directors (check the names!). The name of Bishop Vasa made me raise my eyebrows. He is the good Bishop who asked all his catechists to take an oath of fidelity to teach only the Magisterial teachings of the Church. He is my kind of Bishop!
F
'If the hormonal agents used in emergency contraception are intended to suppress ovulation, and if they’re applied at a point in a victim’s cycle where they truly can prevent ovulation, Catholics can support their use.
But many backers of emergency contraception intend much more than simply blocking conception. They define it to include methods that are abortifacient — in other words, that kill the fertilized egg after pregnancy has begun by preventing it from implanting in the uterine wall.
For Catholics and Catholic hospitals, this creates a grave moral problem. The size of an unborn human life doesn’t matter; the scientific fact that a human life has begun, does. Once conception occurs, two sets of rights must be protected: the woman unjustly violated, and the innocent life who results. To the degree that supporters of “emergency contraception” obscure this fact, as many often do, they act dishonestly.'