Media twisting Holy Father's words again!
#31
(03-06-2014, 02:01 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 01:39 PM)quo warranto Wrote: But Vox, You can give power of attorney to anyone you want and the government and hospitals will recognize it. You do not need to be civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital.

You can't give power of attorney to anyone if you're in a coma, so it becomes a matter of to whom such power "devolves" to by law.

 

(03-06-2014, 02:20 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:13 PM)quo warranto Wrote: You can't marry someone if you are in a coma either. I bet it's a ton easier to give someone power of attorney as opposed to civilly marrying them. so why not just do that? Especially if there is no romantic involvement.


Presumably, one would form contracts pertaining to inheritance, legal powers pertaining to medical issues, etc., before falling into comas.




But I don't think we should be legislating for an exception though. It is not like everyone and their mothers goes into a coma and every time there is no one there to be with them. Sure when it happens it could be devastating but it is still the exception.
Reply
#32
(03-06-2014, 02:42 PM)PompousMaximus Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:01 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 01:39 PM)quo warranto Wrote: But Vox, You can give power of attorney to anyone you want and the government and hospitals will recognize it. You do not need to be civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital.

You can't give power of attorney to anyone if you're in a coma, so it becomes a matter of to whom such power "devolves" to by law.

 

(03-06-2014, 02:20 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:13 PM)quo warranto Wrote: You can't marry someone if you are in a coma either. I bet it's a ton easier to give someone power of attorney as opposed to civilly marrying them. so why not just do that? Especially if there is no romantic involvement.


Presumably, one would form contracts pertaining to inheritance, legal powers pertaining to medical issues, etc., before falling into comas.




But I don't think we should be legislating for an exception though. It is not like everyone and their mothers goes into a coma and every time there is no one there to be with them. Sure when it happens it could be devastating but it is still the exception.

It's not just a matter of "comas." It's a matter of decisions that almost anyone who dies in a hospital or in hospice will have to make (or have made for them), and many more people who are in a hospital need to make (or have made for them). Aside from comas, there are strokes, the cognitive issues brought on by cirrhosis, Alzheimers, "dementia praecox," as they used to call it, ather/arteriosclerosis that leads to damaged thinking, emotional/mental illnesses, emergency situations that go to matters in between life-saving concerns and quality-of-life concerns and which require approval -- often from folks who are unconscious or drugged-up or what have you, or from their "next of kin" (which is where the contracts come in)  -- a gazillion ways to be ill or to die that affect how decisions are made medical and end-of-life care.
Reply
#33
(03-06-2014, 03:36 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:42 PM)PompousMaximus Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:01 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 01:39 PM)quo warranto Wrote: But Vox, You can give power of attorney to anyone you want and the government and hospitals will recognize it. You do not need to be civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital.

You can't give power of attorney to anyone if you're in a coma, so it becomes a matter of to whom such power "devolves" to by law.

 

(03-06-2014, 02:20 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:13 PM)quo warranto Wrote: You can't marry someone if you are in a coma either. I bet it's a ton easier to give someone power of attorney as opposed to civilly marrying them. so why not just do that? Especially if there is no romantic involvement.


Presumably, one would form contracts pertaining to inheritance, legal powers pertaining to medical issues, etc., before falling into comas.




But I don't think we should be legislating for an exception though. It is not like everyone and their mothers goes into a coma and every time there is no one there to be with them. Sure when it happens it could be devastating but it is still the exception.

It's not just a matter of "comas." It's a matter of decisions that almost anyone who dies in a hospital or in hospice will have to make (or have made for them), and many more people who are in a hospital need to make (or have made for them). Aside from comas, there are strokes, the cognitive issues brought on by cirrhosis, Alzheimers, "dementia praecox," as they used to call it, ather/arteriosclerosis that leads to damaged thinking, emotional/mental illnesses, emergency situations that go to matters in between life-saving concerns and quality-of-life concerns and which require approval -- often from folks who are unconscious or drugged-up or what have you, or from their "next of kin" (which is where the contracts come in)  -- a gazillion ways to be ill or to die that affect how decisions are made medical and end-of-life care.


But I am skeptical of hearing something too much, over and over and over. This is one of those things. I think the "hospital" clause is way over stated
Reply
#34
(03-06-2014, 02:11 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
Quote:when did the man Bergolio change and become the sodomite-lovin modernist you relish in?  What cause his transformation into a left-wing radical when even as an Archbishop he considered allowing civil unions as a last-ditch effort to stop gay marryge?

Examine honestly, austen, without spin, his cumulative comments: 

(1) Francis--"Who-am-I to-judge" sodomy?  (Hint, Your Holiness:  You're the Bishop of Rome, Supreme Pontiff, that's who the heck you are. You have both the right and the responsibility to speak out on moral absolutes, and to uphold the 2,000-year-old Tradition you are sworn to uphold.)

Did ya mention to read the full context?

Quote:But if a person, lay or priest or Sister, has committed a sin and then has converted, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is important for our life. When we go to confession and truly say: “I have sinned in this,” the Lord forgets and we don’t have the right not to forget, because we run the risk  that the Lord won’t forget our [sins]. That’s a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. I think so many times of Saint Peter: he committed one of the worst sins, which is to deny Christ, and with this sin he was made Pope. We must give it much thought.....

....This is the first question. Then you spoke of the gay lobby. Goodness knows! So much is written of the gay lobby. I still have not met one who will give me the identity card with “gay” . They say that they exist. I think that when one meets a person like this, one must distinguish  the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good.  That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him?

With the context it's pretty clear the "Who am I to judge" comes after the gay has repented and sought Forgiveness and has received it.


(03-06-2014, 02:11 PM)Miriam_M Wrote: (2) abortion/homosexuality as "narrow-minded doctrine."  (Is that what they taught you in fun 1970's modernistic seminary, Your Holiness?  Can't have that doctrine stuff.  No.)

Where did you see narrow-minded doctrine?

If you're referring to Pope Francis saying the Church can't be focused on "small-minded rules" in some ways he's right. If we have the Cross without Christ....what do we have? If  we focus so much on the rules that we ignore Christ's Salvation and Ultimate Sacrifice, then we are nothing but a bunch of Latin-speaking Jews who have a big book of rules we all must follow (which we all fail to fully comply because we all sin) and stone anyone who we think is doing enough.


(03-06-2014, 02:11 PM)Miriam_M Wrote: (3) homosexual unions "on a case-by-case basis."  That is called relativism, Your Holiness, which your Church condemned long ago.

Civil Unions Miriam, your calumny is border-lining on sinful. Civil Unions does not explicitly mean "gay marryge"


(03-06-2014, 02:11 PM)Miriam_M Wrote: The list is longer, but I can only stomach so much of his trashing of tradition for so long.

Have a nice spinning day, austen. I mean you no ill, but, like many Catholics wanting not to trust their ears when Francis engages in yet more shock-talk, I do see you as being in flaming denial.  As far as the Pope goes, I'm sure you mean the best, but according to your words here, you do not assume the best toward fellow Catholics who are well versed in traditional moral theology and can recognize a contradiction -- or multiple ones -- when they hear them and read them from this Pontiff.  His comments about how willing he is to compromise with moral theology literally nauseate me, and that's why I can only take so much of him at one time.  It's better for my soul to ignore him because he is an occasion of scandal for me.  Regularly.

You wish me no ill and you engage in name-calling and calumny. You call me a spin doctor, when just a month ago I had critical things to say about the Pope...no, spare me your devious attempt to be charitable. You claim you "can't take the shock-talk" anymore, but who was it that chose to come on here and be exposed to it? You did....so don't attempt to play the victim. You come on here and trash the Holy Father and you play right into the media's hand.

You believe in the media's narrative, fine.....but don't come on here and call me out as a spin doctor, when you clearly are throwing up quotes placed out of context with "snippy sarcastic remarks" to try and demean and denigrate the Pope. You wanna say I'm spinning? I'll say again....Then PROVE IT!!!....or otherwise you knock it off.



On another note, once again it looks like I picked the wrong side again when it comes to Papa......I should have been "lovin" him a month ago when he said something that concerned me.....and I should be "hatin" him now....No! I won't join in this diabolical circus side-show that seeks to either blindly praise everything Pope Francis has done or wickedly mock it. I won't be a part of this evil!  >:(
Reply
#35
(03-06-2014, 03:36 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:42 PM)PompousMaximus Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:01 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 01:39 PM)quo warranto Wrote: But Vox, You can give power of attorney to anyone you want and the government and hospitals will recognize it. You do not need to be civilly married to someone in order for them to visit you in the hospital.

You can't give power of attorney to anyone if you're in a coma, so it becomes a matter of to whom such power "devolves" to by law.

 

(03-06-2014, 02:20 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 02:13 PM)quo warranto Wrote: You can't marry someone if you are in a coma either. I bet it's a ton easier to give someone power of attorney as opposed to civilly marrying them. so why not just do that? Especially if there is no romantic involvement.


Presumably, one would form contracts pertaining to inheritance, legal powers pertaining to medical issues, etc., before falling into comas.




But I don't think we should be legislating for an exception though. It is not like everyone and their mothers goes into a coma and every time there is no one there to be with them. Sure when it happens it could be devastating but it is still the exception.

It's not just a matter of "comas." It's a matter of decisions that almost anyone who dies in a hospital or in hospice will have to make (or have made for them), and many more people who are in a hospital need to make (or have made for them). Aside from comas, there are strokes, the cognitive issues brought on by cirrhosis, Alzheimers, "dementia praecox," as they used to call it, ather/arteriosclerosis that leads to damaged thinking, emotional/mental illnesses, emergency situations that go to matters in between life-saving concerns and quality-of-life concerns and which require approval -- often from folks who are unconscious or drugged-up or what have you, or from their "next of kin" (which is where the contracts come in)  -- a gazillion ways to be ill or to die that affect how decisions are made medical and end-of-life care.
This argument in favor of civil unions is beyond absurd to me. Again, You don't need to be civilly married to someone to have them be at your bedside or speaking for you in the hospital. If this is a concern, then assign someone you trust as a power of attorney. You don't need to be married to them, civilly or otherwise.

This argument in favor of civil unions has been overused to say the least and make zero sense.
Reply
#36
There is no doubt in my mind that if some of the folks here lived during the reign of Alexander VI Borgia they would go about defending his indiscretions and pretending that his mistresses and his bastard children did not exist.

By the way Alexander VI may have been a terrible person but he was still a better Pope than Francis.

Francis said (yet again) what he said. Going of in tangents, attacking the people who call him out (as if we enjoyed having to make the hard choice of admitting the Pope is a liability and danger to the Church)  won't change that. He is a terrible Pope. His positive comments are only the calm before the coming storm. There is always another senseless, uncalled for interview with a newspaper about to rear it's ugly head. It's like Kim Kardashian is the Pope.

Should civil unions be "evaluated on their diversity" because the great majority of people are going to be entering civil unions to platonically hold hands and play patty-cake ?? . The Pope knows, the media knows, the gays knows and even extraterrestrials would probably know exactly what these remarks mean. It's only some conservative  Catholics who enable this craziness. If there was more of a public outrage maybe it would help HH reconsider this insanity.

Reply
#37
(03-06-2014, 05:26 PM)quo warranto Wrote: This argument in favor of civil unions is beyond absurd to me. Again, You don't need to be civilly married to someone to have them be at your bedside or speaking for you in the hospital. If this is a concern, then assign someone you trust as a power of attorney. You don't need to be married to them, civilly or otherwise.

This argument in favor of civil unions has been overused to say the least and make zero sense.

You'll never get it if you can't distinguish between a civil contract and marriage. You keep mixing up the terms "civil marriage"  and "civil unions."

Reply
#38
(03-06-2014, 10:55 PM)spikepaga Wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that if some of the folks here lived during the reign of Alexander VI Borgia they would go about defending his indiscretions and pretending that his mistresses and his bastard children did not exist.

No doubt in my mind, either.

For that matter, even one of the ultra-liberal priests in my region knows his Catholic theology better, and publicly supports it more, than Pope Francis.

Quote:By the way Alexander VI may have been a terrible person but he was still a better Pope than Francis.

Precisely.

Quote: Francis said (yet again) what he said. Going of in tangents, attacking the people who call him out (as if we enjoyed having to make the hard choice of admitting the Pope is a liability and danger to the Church)  won't change that. He is a terrible Pope. His positive comments are only the calm before the coming storm. There is always another senseless, uncalled for interview with a newspaper about to rear it's ugly head. It's like Kim Kardashian is the Pope.

Yes, he is a media personality and he seeks that media, despite his recent comments, which were quite lacking in credibility, by the way.
Reply
#39
(03-07-2014, 02:14 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-06-2014, 05:26 PM)quo warranto Wrote: This argument in favor of civil unions is beyond absurd to me. Again, You don't need to be civilly married to someone to have them be at your bedside or speaking for you in the hospital. If this is a concern, then assign someone you trust as a power of attorney. You don't need to be married to them, civilly or otherwise.

This argument in favor of civil unions has been overused to say the least and make zero sense.

You'll never get it if you can't distinguish between a civil contract and marriage. You keep mixing up the terms "civil marriage"  and "civil unions."

Here's the problem...You seem to think there is a difference. There is not much....A Marriage is a sacrament, yes but it is also a civil contract.  A civil union is a sort of marriage of two parties to each other. Civil unions are used by homosexuals as a form of marriage. This way they can get all the benefits of a sacramentally married couple. Your use of the hospital argument in favor of civil unions is what is troubling to me. There is no reason why a power of attorney could not work for people in those kinds of situations.

If civil unions were nothing more then a contract so people could have a certain person at there bedside in the hospital then the church would not be against civil unions.  It is because it is recognized as a form of marriage that the church is against it. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Here's the def. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
Reply
#40
It's times like these when it almost literally hurts to be traditionally Catholic :(
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)