It is true that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does not restrict access to hospital patients to family and loved ones exclusively. This would be the reason I used the qualifier “such as” in my last response. Of course, if we are strictly construing the directive, it says nothing about visitors at all, merely who will have the right to make medical decisions. Further, in using a subjective term such as “loved ones,” it is obvious that the directive means to leave wide latitude for hospital staff to determine who it is that qualifies and who does not. Such discernment properly takes into account the moral character of the relationship between the patient and the potential visitor.
Irrespective of what sort of illicit activity goes on in a movie theater, the venue is still public. What is more, your attempted parallel fails here as well since movie theaters can and do restrict access to films based on objective criteria, like age. Likewise, hospitals are correct to limit access to patients they are attempting to make well. The objective criteria that hospitals have chosen is one of intimacy usually found, as the USCCB foresees, in family and “loved ones.” A same-sex partner has no legitimate claim to such intimacy and the hospital that refuses to recognize such an attempted claim acts to preserve the truth of what is and is not a genuine “intimate” relationship.
I agree with you that the use of a subjective term (you mentioned “loved ones”) might be allowing a wide latitude to determine who qualifies and who doesn’t. Still, I am used to determining who my “loved ones” are for myself, and not to be told who they are by someone else. That is not the usual way to determine my “loved ones”.
I also agree with you that the quote I gave was about medical decisions. I gave it because Pathia was denied the making of medical decisions, if I recall. I would find it strange to think that the person who makes the medical decisions would not be allowed to visit, but it is possible. Seeing a patient is information. For example, I’d not wish to decide to pull a plug without visiting the person. But, you could be right that they strictly separate the idea of visitation from the making of medical decisions. It isn’t the most natural choice, though.
I’ve agreed all along that access to patients can be restricted. There are legitimate medical or common good reasons to do so.
Perhaps what you are saying about the hospital is that it is a private enterprise, and may set its own rules on its private grounds, debarring anyone they wish from entering the premises. Then, you are further arguing that it is reasonble on moral grounds to pick to debar a person who has committed sodomy with the patient at some time in the past. Perhaps, also, that this brief interlude away from that person may help the patient recover from whatever put them in the hospital. Thus for you, it cannot be compassionate to let them visit the patient in a hospital. But, in some other setting, say a public one, it might be obligatory to let them spend time together, so there is no need to consider if it is compassionate or not.
Actually, I had forgotten until I looked back that you had talked about compassion. That, in itself, helps me to understand what you are saying. (although we do not agree on all poins)
