Montgomery, thanks for the perspective. Yabby and Pericles seem to be stuck in a loop of hysterical historical hoohah having no bearing on the topic of the contemporary exercise of conscience - unless they mean that all Catholics should instantly chuck their faith in the good aspects of Catholicism, and berate and whip themselves soundly, out of desperate concern for all the ancient bad. But, who is without sin?

Yabby, a bit of moderate self flagellation can be an attempt to empathise with the trials that Christ, the disciples and many saints had to bear, and thus for the truly devout can simply represent an attempt to feel closer to their God. Nothing strange or deviant in that.

"Given that church dogma affects my freedoms of choice, why should
I not protest?. Given that church dogma causes much misery and
suffering, why should I not feel empathy for those who are so misfortunate?"

Your freedoms affected? In the past I can understand, but now? Ok, I'm sorry, some hurts last a lifetime, but fortunately times have changed, and with it extreme zealotry, even if with the best of intentions, is rightly deplored. Too slow coming? Probably. Too little recognition and reconciliation? Probably. But, hopefully, lessons have been learnt and methods and programs amended accordingly. Past times have been difficult, and many unsound practices employed in misguided fervour. If possible, time to move forward.

Causes much misery and suffering? Did the Church dictate that certain people had to live on rubbish dumps and produce swags of children to share in their misery? Or have the likes of Mother Teresa tried to comfort the poor and disenfranchised? Perspective, balance, truth, my dear Yabby. Not all is at it seems, and not all tarred with the same brush.

Catholicism is the big bogey? I suppose Hitler, Pol Pot, Sadaam, Gaddhafi, Bin Laden and so many other deluded psychotics were all closet Catholics then?

Pericles, I chose these contemporary abhorrences in attempt to focus on our new and more 'enlightened' world exercise of 'conscience'.

No, Yuyutsu, you are not correct. The Church teaches that you cannot commit a sin in order to prevent one, even if the one you wish to prevent is greater. A Catholic policeman would most definitely intervene to prevent the sin of breaking the woman's teeth. He is not responsible for what the woman chooses to do after her 'rescue'. I'm not sure what gave you that idea in the first place. Moreover, there are sins of commission and omission, and the policeman would commit a sin of omission if he failed to fulfil his duty to protect the woman.

(And I'm female by the way.)

Splendid, Mishka,

In this case, may I assume that you agree with me that it is not a sin for a politician to vote to get the state out of the way in the case of abortions (and I include also the case of babies who were not introduced to the state, although for some reason you find this case different), thus protecting the woman from being imprisoned if she aborts? Indeed, the politician is not responsible for what the woman chooses to do after her 'rescue'.

Agree or disagree with him - I think Christopher Hitchens death is an unfortunate extinguishment of a critically thinking modern mind and conscience.

*The bishops can't threaten to excommunicate someone because it happens automatically. All they can do is talk about it:*

So are they bluffing and lying, Lindy? How Christian is that?
Clearly these devious tactics have worked for years.

It seems like even the Prez got sucked in.

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/04/philippine-president-says-hell-risk-excommunication-legislation

Salpetre, perhaps you should go and reread the Time article to
understand why the Catholic Church is responsible for much misery
and suffering the the Philippines. We won't even start about the
rest of the third world.Or perhaps you simply lack the compassion
of what it is to be human in the third world, where the church controls everything and you have nothing.

Of course the Catholic Church affects my freedom to choose. When the
NT inroduced voluntary euthanasia, it was amazing how the Catholic
policitians rallied to shut it down.

Meantime we have a whole lot of oldies who want choices about their
lives and how they end, who are forced to turn criminal, head for
Mexico and smuggle back their stash of Nembutal.

You want freedom of religion, but we want freedom from religion,
for those of us who feel so enclined. Force Catholics to live by their
dogma if you will, but leave me out if it and many others out of it,
or we'll have every right to protest.

Sorry, Yuyutsu, you're not making much sense. We were talking about a policeman, who has a duty to defend the public from physical assault. Suddenly you're talking about a politician as policeman and the state as thug. The state does not threaten anyone with physical assault - it is not a thug - but if it did then a politician could vote to remove that threat, theoretically. In the case of abortion, however, it would be sinful for a Catholic politician to support abortion because it is the woman's offspring that is under threat, not the woman. The woman does not need rescuing from any illegal activity. The politician is, however, responsible for legislation, and he should not vote for any legislation that is harmful to innocent human life.

WmTrevor, agreed.

Saltpetre, thanks again for your sensible and polite comments.