Catholic bishop supports benefits for gay couples

Ch 6 ^

[narses]

How special.

[JohnnyZ]

That is SO gay.

[sinkspur]

What's wrong with hospital visitation rights? If somebody's family has abandoned them because they're gay, maybe the partner is the only person they've got.

I don't know what "bereavement rights" are, but if it's just a representation at the funeral home, I've got no problem with that either.

[narses]

Treating sexual deviancy as if it were equivalent to families is sick. As an alleged Deacon you ought to understand that.

[sinkspur]

Treating sexual deviancy as if it were equivalent to families is sick. As an alleged Deacon you ought to understand that.

As a Deacon, narses, I understand the compassion of Christ.

As a Catholic, you should too.

[narses]

And a self proclaimed Modern Deacon applauds this. So special.

[Antoninus]

Can you say "incrementalism", bishop? Yeah, I knew you could.

[narses]

True compassion includes denouncing public sin, not embracing it. "Go and sin no more" is not the same as allowing "economic and social benefits" for sexual deviants.

[sinkspur]

True compassion includes denouncing public sin, not embracing it. "Go and sin no more" is not the same as allowing "economic and social benefits" for sexual deviants.

What "economic benefit" does allowing a gay person's partner involve? It's just allowing somebody to come into the hospital.

Don't worry, narses. Your nickels are safe.

[narses]

The self proclaimed Deacon sat=ys it's just the Compassion of Christ, not incrementalism. Is he right?

[Loyalist]

Having read Bishop Reilly's comments, two presumptions come to mind about his diocese:

1. The recent homosexual scandal has hit his diocese harder than most.

2. His diocese has an especially severe vocations crisis, aggravated by large numbers of heterodox priests, religious, and chancery officials.

Anyone with particular knowledge about the Diocese of Worcester is invited to confirm or rebut these presumptions.

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic

Unspun with AnnaZ
October 23rd, 2003 -- 10pmE/7pmP

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point!"

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

[narses]

"Economic benefits" are insurance "deacon". They are inheritance rights and property rights. Your modernist buddy here is working towards more "rights" for the sexual deviants, and you're applauding him.

[sinkspur]

Where did Bishop O'Reilly say he favored insurance? Or property rights?

Seems to me, all he wants is to let a dying person get visited by a friend or two.

And have those same friends make funeral arrangements.

Are you going to deny them that?

[Loyalist]

PING

[narses]

Are you claiming that your musings equal "economic rights"? Visitation in hospitals and funderal homes are not the issue, it is establishing sexual deviancy as a legal status with the Catholic hierarchy arguing FOR that recognition. Do you want the legitimate children of these queers denied their property rights in favor of one of the many sex partners the sodomites choose?

[secret garden]

Trouble brewing in Beantown ping.

[Jorge]

What's wrong with hospital visitation rights? If somebody's family has abandoned them because they're gay, maybe the partner is the only person they've got.

Exactly.
It's one thing to have moral convictions.
It's another thing to want people to suffer for their imperfections.

[narses]

More than 30 sex-abuse lawsuits have been filed in recent years alleging that he and other administrators took part in covering for accused priests during his tenures at three New England dioceses. Bishop Reilly, who also worked in Providence, R.I., and Norwich, Conn., has denied involvement in decisions to transfer clerics. He kept the Rev. Peter Inzerillo of Worcester active despite allegations of sexual misconduct with a young priest candidate in the mid-1980s. The man said the misconduct happened when he was 19 during counseling sessions with Father Inzerillo. He said he had confided to Father Inzerillo that another priest had abused him when he was 13. Father Inzerillo denied the allegation, but after a lawsuit was filed in 1994 the bishop at the time placed him on leave. Years later, Bishop Reilly settled the case for $300,000 and reinstated the priest at a church. Bishop Reilly continued to express support for Father Inzerillo and let him work until March. When parishioners demanded the priest's removal, Bishop Reilly relented and put Father Inzerillo on leave again.