1. Draw and quarter comes to mind. Or a pit of wild boar…

  2. I don’t agree with or support the Church’s position, but I understand it. When the foundation of a moral code is protection of life, anything else would make no sense. Remember, this isn’t the hypocritical Bible-thumping code that opposes abortion but supports the death penalty. The Catholic Church opposes the taking of life, period. You can oppose that position, but at least recognize its consistency.

    That contrasts sharply with the conventional “the rules don’t apply to me” morality, which Quarsan criticized on your blog last week. Typically people are far too ready to make exceptions to their supposed morals. Bombing an abortion clinic to “protect life” is only the most absurd of such instances. Breaking the law to demonstrate how committed we are to our way of life (which includes the rule of law) is another. Seeking to silence those who speak out against free speech. Thinking democracy means you have the right to agree with the Party– whether that party happens to be Marxist, GOP, or Dem. The list goes on…

    Again, not saying the Church is right, but it is at least consistent.

  3. I’m not sure how a cultural corporation such as the church can have a hand in the genocide of upwards to twenty-five million First Americans while oppos[ing] the taking of life, period … while seeking to silence those who speak against its “authority”, but I’m down with the consistency of their ignorance as a statistical population. Like cows, they’re pretty predictable.

    As an aside – in the classic early anti-katholi sense of the word I am in fact a Protest-ant. I don’t hold the church as authority, I’ve read the books and drawn my own conclusions.

    History continues to be rewritten by the “authorities”.

  4. The quote from Cardinal (or Bishop ?) Re said they don’t believe in taking life but the only lives he was even remotely thinking about were the twins. What about the life of the nine year old child carrying twins? I’d lay money that without the abortion – all three would have died. If they want to go down that road then the stepfather should be up for murder as well as rape and abuse. By the way – why didn’t the church excommunicate him? Oh let me guess, being a child molester and rapist makes him a special member of the church to be protected.

  5. There have been no shortages in history of people making exceptions to a moral code (any moral code) to kill other people. Without delving into past abhorrent practices, including BTW the atrocities of Metacom, son of the Wampanoag chief who made peace with my ancestors, it is ironic that we use distant past failure to follow a moral code to mock current adherence to that code.

    Applying the Buddhist moral code, which permits the taking of life only when “killing one would save two,” would have given the same result.

    Perhaps we’re arguing here that morals are no longer of use?

Comments are closed.