Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: sinkspur

"The Church does not advocate lawlessness."

First off, I haven't advocated lawlessness. But, while we are on the subject, you are aware of what Aquinas thought of an unjust law? An unjust law being one that offends against the natural law? Aquinas thought such a law was no law at all. Have you ever read Antigone, Deacon? The Church has a long history of supporting a natural law, or higher law reading of positive law. At some point, I think must Catholic theologians would agree, we have a greater duty to the higher law than positive law. I am finding it difficult to distinguish this particular moment in history from such a contingency.

There is a detail of Pinnellas Park police standing death watch around a hospice in Florida so that a woman may be starved to death. This woman has been denied a feeding tube as well as hydration or food by mouth. If you do not see the injustice in this, then I think then you have lost all true ability to reason.

The hysterics and emotional outbursts in these posts is some consolation to me. At least most of us still have the moral sensibility to be shocked by this event. Your supposed equanimity I read as callousness and moral obtuseness only.


203 posted on 03/25/2005 8:29:29 PM PST by mandatum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]


To: mandatum
But, while we are on the subject, you are aware of what Aquinas thought of an unjust law?

Well, as a non-catholic, I can say with a straight face that the opinion of Aquinas means very little to me. See, America is a constitutional republic, not a land where religion trumps law. I'm sure that disappoints you, but it's the truth all the same...

208 posted on 03/25/2005 8:34:26 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Sure you can trust the government... just ask an Indian...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: mandatum
The hysterics and emotional outbursts in these posts is some consolation to me. At least most of us still have the moral sensibility to be shocked by this event. Your supposed equanimity I read as callousness and moral obtuseness only.

I don't do hysterics. It results in saying things one wishes one had not said.

You interpret rejection of characterizations of Jeb Bush as unconcerned as callousness.

One can be opposed to the treatment of TS and, at the same time, reject the calls for violence against certain players.

213 posted on 03/25/2005 8:38:25 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson