Cardinal Tetras And Betta

as the world falls down

All this time I had the ' illusion of living in a secular state .
Today I awake from the dream and I note sadly, and I wonder how it is possible that none - or few - or indignino sdegnino you for all that is happening.
I wonder how it is possible that in a State whose Constitution speaks of secularism that allows the judiciary - secular institution par excellence - is being mistreated and taken so little account.
Seventeen years to die in peace. Perhaps it is not clear what the structure of Justice in this country, which wants as a final grade of the trial that the Court of Cassation and the Good God
Indeed there are those who can do scripted soap-opera and to place themselves on the hood of a car used for the transfer of the body of Eluana in other places will be taken more account of his dignity.
I have no words but this silence is even worse than the shock.
The law is clear: it must be possible. Not conceive of a world where this does not happen. The law must ensure
the possibility, then the moral responsibility takes over and each choice of what to do or what not to do.

I happen to think these days Beppino Englaro, and what remains Once done all this havoc.
Sometimes I think it is just this struggle for justice that keeps him upright and still alive, and I wonder how it is possible to have so little sensitivity with respect to a person who is threaded Executioner, without the least respect without the slightest consideration. Moreover, John Paul II chose not to receive any care, when it was his moment, and did not fly a single word about it. I do not care to pursue an anti-Catholic campaign, is the point. There should be no antagonism, because no limit should be crossed: ethics and morals, the state and the church, and the possibility choice. The common denominator must be the ' opportunity, opportunity, guaranteed to make and to decide. Without
to receive this pitiless accusations - yes, without pietas - and out of place, inappropriate.
not even need to bring personal cases in the public square, there would be many things to add on my part that might convince more emotional, but the point is that the speech is perfectly able to stay on a level of impartiality and lucidity instead in more general discussions that I think is always put aside.

The science of law is the true guarantee instead. Sometimes frightening but it is the fundamental issue: there are no personalities, there are no laws ad personam, there is only one duty, which is to ensure, and there are tools to perform that duty, and a Constitution that speaks of the rights to dignity and freedom of choice, and the laws and judgments of the judiciary and the Supreme Court, the last instance of the proceedings, for which I find more terrible is due to arrive. How long will you vex
on key issues such as the possibility of a living will? What that the Supreme Court had to do was to issue a ruling being forced to fill a regulatory gap that comes to mind to call chasm. What bitterness.

.