Posted on 08/09/2007 9:41:18 PM PDT by texas booster
Thanks to both of you for your reasoned responses on this thread.
I hadn’t seen the other thread until now, and it it much more slanted than the DMN article.
Some reporters and editors never miss a chance to slam a church. In Texas, often the opposite happens, and the press is overly friendly to their church.
Part human nature, part agenda driven.
It does seem that the minister at the hospital tried to help as best he could, and was later overrulled due to the photos or due to decisions of higher-ups.
The story has exploded over talk radio this week, and each host is taking a position as they see fit.
Our condolences for your loss of your best friend who you chose to enjoy life with.
Thank you for your views on the circumstances.
I have chose to spend the last 28 yrs dedicated to caring for my severly disabled quadroplegic son who has also been rejected by our local Catholic Church.
When he was to attend his teen yrs Catechism for confirmation they moved the class upstairs and told us they would not consider having it downstairs this after he had been attending 2 yrs prior and every week was a challenge emotionally for me as his assistant/careprovid knowing all those ignoring we were even there.
So I understand your pain.
We attended another much different Catholic church that was very conservative and very loving.
We have been unwelcomed in places of business due to his disability as it offended other patrons.
We simply have found places that our wonderfully happy to have us spend our money at their business and have been very kind not only to my son but other folks with an array of disabiilities or life challenges.
We have never wore a flag demanding “rights” or used our situation to hide behind.
It sounds like you have not either with your life choices.
As you grievingly know life is to short to do that.
I wish you all the best as you move on and cherish memories of your friend.
Other than my sons 24hr care I have little time for personal relationships so have chose to not have a husband and be single for life. I instead chose to raise Labradors for the last 25 yrs for companionship and don’t regret being single and not having other children. My point being who cares if society has shunned my choices I have done what I promised God I would do and that is care for my son for life.
You chose to stick by Cecil for life and you did cherish that freindship and don’t allow those who did not except you to sour your life.
I applaud you on not making your time a grief a political flag parading cause for the lifestyle you shared with Cecil.
Keep living with a positive attitude and ignore those who don’t get it, let God sort it all out in the end.
God Bless.
Thanks for the ping.
Let me say it is not a homosexual issue.
I get tired of people who where banners for whatever they choose to hide the core of whom they are as human beings.
Cecil friend seems unlike this and I respect that.
Please remove this post. After reading further posts, including those from loved ones of the man who passed away, it is obvious to me that the article both omitted and exaggerated relevant facts.
Though I am totally opposed to militant homosexualism, I am more opposed to denying anyone their human dignity.
My husband (Freeper “Lager”) and I split on this issue. He says the Church was right to deny the family of a funeral for the gay man - maybe the church leaders know something we don’t. I say the Church could have used it as an opportunity to show love, compassion, and to offer the message of salvation to all in attendance.
I can kind of see his point . . . kind of.
Strangely enough, one time I did attend a large funeral for a young man who died of AIDS in Seattle WA. The Church was packed. The man’s mother stood up and told everyone that her son had accepted the Lord and was forgiven before he died and then a preacher preached and tried to convince everyone there to get saved. When the preacher was preaching about five people stood up and walked out. Maybe that’s what this Church was concerned about? I don’t know but I still feel sorry for the Moms.
I think there’s something you need to know right off. I don’t wish you any pain. I don’t agree with your lifestyle, but that’s really none of my business. I’m sure you probably wouldn’t agree with some of mine either. That being said, you guys both served in the military. I thank you for that. I do appreciate it. Not knowing you, it’s still likely that you did other things in your life I would approve of, so this isn’t a total repudiation of either of you. Don’t read it that way.
One of your comments was, “If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end.” It strikes me that you could have been welcome. You mentioned that there were other homosexuals in the church. I imagine those people will be allowed funeral services within the church. This being the case, it’s rather clear that you would have been welcome in the church before the death. That you weren’t afterwards isn’t a big surprise for me.
The person who volunteered the church’s facilities was probably a well meaning individual, he did come through with funding for alternative services. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen well meaning church members blow it. This person wasn’t in a position of authority, or the services would have been held there. He spoke for others and it didn’t work out. Even after you thought the services could be held there, Pasters and church boards have to please all the regular members. That doesn’t mean that those members should be able to dictate in all matters, but in this one they prevailed. For all the obvious reasons, I don’t think that should be considered an ‘out of the blue’ moment for you.
Look, I’m sorry one or more people gave you the green light, then the door was closed. I don’t like that it came down that way, but there are times in life when you have to accept that you’re not going to get the straight reason for things. While you may not see that as the moral way to approach you, the people who were tasked with breaking the news to you probably didn’t want to confront your lifestyle to yoru face when explaining that you couldn’t use the facilities. You may not like to hear this, but I understand their position on this. In truth, I understand yours as well.
This was at best an uncomfortable fit. Even though your partner seems to have been a member, they hadn’t attended in years. This means they didn’t support the church during functions, monetarily or most importantly it’s teachings. That’s a rather important trifecta to overlook IMO.
I must admit, I haven’t been to funerals where they have 83 photos on display. I will say that what may pass the non-offensive meter for you, might not for others. Any pictures that showed the two of you holding hands, with your arms around each other or even just standing real close, would grate some church members something fierce knowing what they knew.
I am sorry for your loss. I am also sorry that years before this situation came to pass, the both of you didn’t plan for it. Now, a church was put in an uncomfortable situation. So were you. That is unfortunate. Do you really think it’s all that much of a surprise?
Well, I hope that things look up for you. I don’t wish uncomfortable situations and unhappiness on anyone. You take care.
My concern was that he and other members of the article would fall into a flame war after his post and be completely offended, not understanding the nature of Free Republic. I in no way want to bring disrepute to FR.
I did read his posts and elected not to call the moderators. He was not advocating a political position as much as explaining his side. He does not have the characteristics of a troll.
Since I seldom see principals from a news article post on FR, I felt that it was newsworthy enough to ping the people who has posted on the thread, plus wagglebee. If our desire is to seek truth I believe that everyone who posted should be alerted that new information was available.
I will certainly agree with wagglebee that the DMN article was too kind to the church, while the thread from WCBSTV.COM in NYC was too harsh and very agenda driven.
This is what we often see in our media driven society, where a simple news story explodes across the country. Everyone listens to a small slice of the story and forms an opinion. And opinions from either coast are very different than they are here in the Bible-belt.
As I’ve said before, my main opposition is to the radical homosexual agenda. However, I WILL NOT have Bill O’Reilly or anyone else saying that I hate homosexuals, because that is simply not the truth. After reading more on this subject, it became obvious that while some are pushing an agenda, but that the Cecil’s loved ones do not seem to be behind this.
I alerted the media for one reason only, and that was to remove the Homosexual Agenda Ping. I do not feel that it is appropriate to dishonor the memory of any person and I wanted to avoid that possibility.
I think the thread should remain though.
It took a turn to show the other side of the coin.
I am with you I am not for militant anything type groups.
I might suggest however as with our Prayer threads or Christian discussion threads when someone comes on to intrude and post inappropriate opinions (they can start anti threads not disrupt) the mods delete those inappropriate posts.
I would suggest the same here.
It might in up making a more compact thread.
Well not my business.
Prayer for wisdom on the mods part.
I’m glad you brought the post to our attention. I tried to be somewhat middle of the road, but it could be deemed to be somewhat harsh depending on your viewpoint.
I see some points on both sides. I do however have to come down on the side of the church in this instance.
This is the kicker, I think. If the guy was some two-bit unknown pastor this wouldn't have made the papers at all.
I should hope not!
I agree with that analysis.
If all one knew was the excerpt and the article from WCBS-TV, the you would conclude that the church was coerced into volunteering for the funeral and then brutalized by the press.
When Cecils Partner posted it shed light on the process that would not appear in any paper.
I will not be surprised if this is not the end of the story.
I had no idea what you were talking about, having somehow missed this entire discussion.
A search on BOR and O'Reilly becomes very disturbing. I would suspect that his contentions are almost slanderous.
Yeah, we get our share of trolls, but by no means is this board full of nuts and wackos.
We are positively boring, compared to the language used on DU and KOS.
Fair enough. Your comment had made it sound as if you were passing judgment, rather than trying to make the best of a bad situation. I quite understand that some things are better left unsaid- and perhaps unseen.
Nor will I. Thanks for the note.
D1
There are sometimes when posting that I could remember enough emoticons to enable a wink, wink, nudge, nudge on posts.
Thats what happens when we type conversationally. How my kids message each other with no vowels, and still communicate effectively, I’ll never know.
Thanks for your post. My only support of the church in this situation is that he was not a member. For example, I attend St. Francis and am a member for years since I was in First Grade. When I die, if my wife took me to St. Thomas Moore to have a funeral mass, they will say no to my wife because I am not a member. Other than that I think the church would have performed the funeral mass or I would have been against the church on that issue. I think people should be members to receive the “benefits”. Just my two cents.
That's pretty much the nature of funerals. Funerals are humanist. There is not one instance of a Christian funeral in the Bible; the Lord said "let the dead bury their dead."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.