Fini obviously does not agree, it is not online, it is not politically correct. Maybe it was just informed, even tell you did a reading of the 2000 Vatican document on the Church and the mistakes of the past. Apparently the alleged document, which at this point I would be interested to recover, not just the Osservatore Romano, which responds with class: " embittered by the fact that one of the political heirs of fascism, which was the infamy of the racial laws' solely responsible as well for some time and he wants to distance themselves commendably, is now calling into question the Catholic Church "
What I understand from the illuminated words, despite Fini has long distanced itself from Fascism ( outraged so many people on the right, as can be seen in the manifest to side) is not entitled to do so as a "political heir". It 's like saying the guilt of your fathers which were stain does not admit that you had turned. There is no expiation after the sin, in practice, is not possible (I will walk the parallel ) baptism. And sin is understood
surgery: the culprit is the perpetrator, in this case "fascism." There is little space for 'despicable "silence" of the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula (Vatican people probably included). There remains the question: if the Church is so sure to have opposed with all possible means ( but they are all , otherwise it would Church) fascist racism, it would be nice to have documentation on, and not just statements on the matter. Otherwise it is the usual exchange of accusations of "lying". Even
Lamanna, of course, disagrees, does not follow the rules. Lamanna is the judge who said "pull the plug to Eluana . Who decided to end the hell on earth for Eluana and his family (just to be clear ). All hell broke loose, of course, murderess, criminal godless Many of them were rediscovered fundamentalists, flower associations indices pointed to a ruling unprecedented. With all the chorus of screams in the background, the father of Eluana was preparing to launch it to death in a clinical Udine, hoping in vain to resolve the matter in a merciful silence after years in which he had had to put up with angry criticism of thousands of strangers sitting comfortably in their own lives. But no, here it
Sacconi ( he agrees that yes, he is in line ) draws his sword and issue a ministerial act to address with whom the ax falls religious ( Why just do not know how else to call it, I apologize ) on any reasoning: stop nutrition and hydration for people in persistent vegetative state is not legal ( no ifs, buts ). Apart from that I have not figured out how to face the minister to establish what is not legal, that is "legally permissible" if you first spoke of the need, precisely, of a law on living wills as a result of the moral questions raised by the case Englaro , suppose that the law should follow the classic parliamentary process to see the light. But the show, cabaret, theater stroke occurs when Lamanna noted that the decree of July is not subject to certification of enforceability because a measure judicial appeal is not enforceable. Sacconi seraphic then responds: " certain behaviors different from those principles would lead to defaults with imaginable consequences." I am given the set of TV series, but I've heard phrases like the Sopranos only, or in some old episode of the Octopus. From TGCOM , title: "From Fini petty opportunism " Opportunism? But the ' opportunism was not the ability to adapt to a context? And in our country, so heavily influenced by the words of the Vatican, it is conceivable that such statements are opportunist? No, the real opportunist Sacconi is right, I know, that hits two birds with one stone: one leads to confrontation with the judges-demons ( image so dear to their deployment ) and waving the banner of true belief past and future in front of voters.
