• Druggist did not want to violate Law of God
I am a member of the Beards-town Area Ministerial Association, and I fully approved the letter by the Rev. Dr. [name withheld], president of BAMA.
I know the pharmacist mentioned in the letter. He is an outstanding individual who also has a deep sense of morality concerning his profession, and he believes that he must follow his conscience when fulfilling prescriptions. He is neither a hero nor a criminal, but a man with an educated, certain and correct conscience.
Conscience is the judgment of practical reason reached by human intelligence seeking to know what is the morally permissible and commendable form of action in a given practical situation. A conscience may be “certain” or “doubtful.” A conscience is certain when the person is convinced that judgment he makes is the correct one. A conscience is “doubtful” when a person is uncertain of the morality of an action. One is always obliged to follow a certain conscience.
However, a certain conscience may be either “correct” or “erroneous.” It is correct when it agrees with objective morality and erroneous when it does not. If one has a certain conscience, but one that is erroneous through no fault of his own, he must follow his conscience.
Now, the work that all pharmacists do has clear and definite moral ramifications. If the pharmacist’s conscience tells him that it is morally wrong to dispense a particular medication or device, he may not do so under pain of serious sin. He simply does not want to do anything that violates the Law of God.
An authentic conscience must be formed in accord with “right reason” and the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, who reaffirmed the whole moral law.
Consequently, the pharmacist cannot, in good conscience, dispense the so-called “morning-after pill” and no power on Earth can make him dispense it, including our state leaders and governing bodies.
That was almost more simplistic and caricaturist than it was self-righteous and insufferable, ash thinks. She was rather surprised that her reply did not evoke another reply from the reverend, particularly in retrospect when he really displayed gall.
I’m sure the Rev. Weitzel is a very good clergyperson, who meets and exceeds the requirements of his profession. Of the pharmacist Mr. Vandersand I’m not so sure.
In his recent letter to the editor, Rev. Weitzel refers to an “objective morality” guiding Mr. Vandersand in his decisions whether to furnish or deny drugs involving a woman’s reproduction. I would be interested in the definition of that seemingly oxymoronic term beyond the equally cryptic “correct conscience.” In any case, Mr. Vandersand is governed, or should be governed, not by the laws of God but by state regulations which clearly require supplying such drugs or referring the woman seeking the prescription to a nearby pharmacy in a timely manner.
Why has this simple matter caused so much confusion? This is not a theocracy – yet – dictating the religious views of all citizens. That Mr. Vandersand refuses to comply with secular mandates may make God – that would be his version of God, not necessarily the “objective” God – smile; nevertheless, it fails to conform to his job description. I imagine that must create quite a conflict of interest for Mr. Vandersand. Since, as the Rev. vouches, he is such a faithful Christian, may I suggest that Mr. Vandersand retire from his current profession and consider becoming a minister.