Obama Orders Hospital Visitation Rights For Gay, Lesbian Couples

[sedonaman]

…
One can only surmise - and I’d prefer not to, merely to report the fact. …

So we are going to overturn the whole society based solely on what is surmised? Did it ever occur to you that the two events were unrelated?

And perhaps you’d like to buy a Harbour Bridge. One careful owner. Cash, no cheques.

Just what is this insult suppose to mean?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

So we are going to overturn the whole society based solely on what is surmised? Did it ever occur to you that the two events were unrelated?

Of course it did. It may be a complete coincidence. Even 1 in a million events happen sometimes. Rarely though. This would be more like 1 in 1000.

Just what is this insult suppose to mean?

No insult was intended. I merely asked an… no, I can’t say “innocent”, that would be a genuine and shameful lie … a question. You surmised something from that - demonstrating that the rules are different for you, you have a privilege I do not.

I repeat, no insult was intended. I try not to insult people accidentally, and when I do do it - rarely - they know it’s quite deliberate, I assure you. I say something along the lines of

"Sir, you are an apogenous, bovaristic, coprolalial, dasypygal, excerebrose, facinorous, gnathonic, hircine, ithyphallic, jumentous, kyphotic, labrose, mephitic, napiform, oligophrenial, papuliferous, quisquilian, rebarbative, saponaceous, thersitical, unguinous, ventripotent, wlatsome, xylocephalous, yirning zoophyte.”

You are, as far as I know, none of the above. If you were, I’m sure it would be in a good way. Genuinely, we just disagree, but you don’t deserve insult. To insult you would reflect badly on me, not you.

 

[JReducation]

In one case, because the patient and partner were both wearing T-shirts supporting the campaign against proposition 8. In another case, they were obviously parents with children.
One can only surmise - and I’d prefer not to, merely to report the fact. Certainly, allowing a lesbian to see her dying partner would be seen by some on this forum as “encouraging homosexuality”. They’ve said so in a previous thread about just this incident, and in so many words. Perhaps the Bishop thought likewise. Perhaps not, it could all be just a complete coincidence.

And perhaps you’d like to buy a Harbour Bridge. One careful owner. Cash, no cheques.

There is a third possibility here ragarding the priest, which is probably the real problem. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to violate the rules of the institutions that we serve. Hospitals give us priveleges to come and go freely, but those priveleges come with conditions. You have to follow their rules.

If the hospital complains to the bishop or the religious sueprior (if it’s a religious), that person who receives the complaint must show the hospital that he is taking appropriate action to ensure that this will not happen again. Otherwise, the hospital has the legal right to ban you from their premises. I believe this was Jackson Memoria. Jackson is a very powerful institution in Southern Florida. If they raise a stink about the Church, everyone and they’re deceased great grandparents will know about it.

That’s my best guess. Normally, no bishop would interfere in this. The Archbishop of Miami is a very copassionate man. Something does not fit here. Either the priest did not get assigned to another diocese or there was a complaint filed by the hospital.

Here’s the thing. If a priest is a secular priest, he cannot be assigned to any diocese but his own unless it goes through a process. The receiving bishop has to agree to take him and then has five years to test him before he decides to keep him. If he decides not to keep him, the priest must be returned to his diocese. It takes five years to become part of another diocese.

Secular priests are not consecrated men. A consecrated religious belongs to no diocese. He goes where ever his order allows him to go. That can be from Florida to Norway. But a secular cannot be run out of his diocese. He can turn around and sue the bishop in an ecclesial court. He goes voluntarilly, if the other bishop agrees to take him. As I said, it takes five years for him to become part of that other diocese. If the two bishops agree, they can shorten the time to one year, no less. There has to be a probation preriod.

Either there is a misunderstanding here about:

a. the re-assignment

b. the priest was not secular, but religious

c. the priest was re-assigned because of a demand from the hospital

One of the above would be true.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manygift1spirit]

I think the suspicion that there might be something more nefarious than simple visitation rights on the agenda is looking quite prescient.

Obama-USCCB: Skirmish on Advance Directives (Courtesy of The Cathoholic; hat tip to American Papist for drawing my attention to it)

[Obama’s] memo also addressed another issue of potential concern to Catholic hospitals: all health care facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements must honor patients’ advance directives…

… The NPR story predicted a possible collision between the president’s stance on advance directives and the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives, which guide the operations of Catholic hospitals.

Hmmm.

 

[JReducation]

I think the suspicion that there might be something more nefarious than simple visitation rights on the agenda is looking quite prescient.

Obama-USCCB: Skirmish on Advance Directives (Courtesy of The Cathoholic; hat tip to American Papist for drawing my attention to it)

Hmmm.

Wasn’t this in my original post and what I’ve been saying all along? When the lid is taken off of Pandora’s Box, same-sex couples are going to be the least of our worries. Life issues are of much greater concern on the moral hierarchy. I’ve been trying to warn people to pay attention to the fine print.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sedonaman]

Wasn’t this in my original post and what I’ve been saying all along? When the lid is taken off of Pandora’s Box, same-sex couples are going to be the least of our worries. Life issues are of much greater concern on the moral hierarchy. I’ve been trying to warn people to pay attention to the fine print.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think the broader issue is that government regulation follows government money [that use to be our money, BTW] and freedom loses as a result, just like Pius XI’s subsidium predicts. So we have paid to lose freedom.

 

[JReducation]

I think the broader issue is that government regulation follows government money [that use to be our money, BTW] and freedom loses as a result, just like Pius XI’s subsidium predicts. So we have paid to lose freedom.

This is true. But even freedom takes a second place to the dignity of human life. If there is an agenda here to expand euthanasia under any name, freedom or not, it has to be exposed and opposed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF