The Brazil excommunications case, about which I posted quite a few posts months ago, is back in the news, mainly due to the Osservatore Romano’s negligence in granting a platform to Archbishop Cardoso in response to Fisichella’s critique.
Ed Peters offers his own thoughts here. I draw particular attention to his indication of the scandal caused by the Fisichella piece:
Perhaps some will think my interpretation of Fisichella’s comments unfair? I invite them to consider the devastating analysis of Fisichella’s comments offered by Msgr Michel Schooyans, a Belgian bioethicist and member of three pontifical academies, including the Academy of Life. He finds Fisichella’s comments “astonishing” and is urging nothing less than a personal papal intervention in correction thereof. Or, via negativa, the notorious Frances Kissling took comfort in Fisicella’s comments, showing thereby how poorly the prelate served his office and the wider cause of defending preborn babies from the abortionists’ savagery.
I followed up on these links, and found this rather humorous statement in Kissling’s piece, apparently referring to another topic about which I have posted often:
While more often than not, the paper toes the Vatican line, it is a space where trial balloons are floated and controversial opinion by mainstream church figures right and left is expressed. Opinions regarding modest changes in the Vatican prohibition on AIDS have been published.
Wait, what’s that? “The Vatican prohibition on AIDS”? Gosh, that Vatican! Now they want to take our AIDS away from us, too!
Surely it’s a mistype. But it does indicate that sometimes people in their haste lose sight of the objects of the prohibitions, taking issue with the mere fact of prohibition.
