Canon Law Update Hardt & O'Rourke err in minimizing the scope of the CDF Response

No Canon Law expert here, but I think Peters is correct. I have to read more on what each has said, but wanted to get this onto my blog today.

God bless!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edward Peters <enpeters@comcast.net>
Date: Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM

Hardt & O'Rourke err in minimizing the scope of the CDF Response

Ethicists John Hardt and Kevin O'Rourke are attempting to down-play the importance of the September 2007 CDF Response that upholds the right of persons in "persistent vegetative states" to nutrition and hydration. They invoke, among other things, canon law for their position. I think they are wrong.

Read about it at:  http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/12/hardt-orourke-err-in-minimizing-scope.html

PS: This is a re-send, as I have learned that some of you did not receive the Sunday update. The post above is, of course, entirely up to date. Blessed Advent, folks, edp.