Suppose a person had given up BOURBON for Lent, and after many long, hard, painful days of fasting desired a WHISKEY. Would this constitute breaking the fast?
A certain person who is NOT a bourbon OR whiskey drinker thinks so, going so far as to say such extreme things as “that’s cheating”, while another person who is on intimate terms with both says ‘no, it is a totally different thing’, given that the principle of non-contradiction tells us that a thing cannot ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time, and while it could be argued that bourbon is (Kentucky) whiskey, whiskey is definitely not bourbon. Does everyone agree?
Every time I see some Protestant say something I want to critique, Pope Francis opens his mouth and reminds us all that while Christ founded the Church, Bishops and Priests have been trying to destroy it ever since. (Edit: For those who are confused, scandalized or just eager to accuse: I am paraphrasing what Cardinal Consalvi said to Napoleon Bonaparte, after the latter had threatened to destroy the Church. Cardinal Consalvi said, “If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you’ll be able to do it?”)
Shocking, but not surprising. (If you are surprised, it’s a sign you’ve been deluding yourself). FWIW: Wearing a collar doesn’t make you Catholic.
But besides being patronizing, the Vatican’s statement is a gross distortion of the situation. It portrays the Gards as acting alongside the doctors, but subject to outside manipulation. The Gards are resisting the doctors. The Gards are not facing “their decisions.” They are facing authorities that have overridden them. The good bishop writes that the Gards “must be heard and respected, but they too must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation.” The people “helping” them to understand are speaking in the euphemisms of “death with dignity.”