Posted on 04/27/2013 7:45:25 AM PDT by bboop
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Jennifer Graham tells me something that I hadn’t heard about Boston Marathon bombing. As dozens of victims were sprawled across Boylston Street, many of them in danger of death, Catholic priests came running to the scene—and were turned away.
Doctors and nurses were welcome at the bombing scene. Firefighters and police officers were welcome. But Catholic priests, who might have offered the solace of the sacraments, were not.
”Catholics need not apply.” That slogan was familiar in Boston years ago, before Irish and Italian immigrants took over control of the city. Now, after decades of decline in Catholic influence , the attitude has returned. One priest who was barred from Boylston Street remarked that in the past a priest was admitted anywhere. “That’s changed,” he said. “Priests are no longer considered to be emergency responders.”
Unless police officers in Boston are uniquely hostile to priests (a distinct possibility), the tide has turned very quickly on this question. On September 11, 2001, there were Catholic priests at the staging areas near the World Trade Center, giving absolution to firefighters before they rushed into the doomed building: mass-producing saints!
Unable to provide spiritual help to those whose lives were endangered, the priests in Boston retreated to a nearby church, were they “set up a table with water and oranges and bananas to serve people.” Doesn’t that nicely capture what a once-Catholic, now-secular culture expects from the Church? It’s not essential for priests to administer the sacraments; in fact it’s unwelcome. But if they could just stay out of the way, and give people something to eat, that would be fine.
Jennifer Graham captures the problem well:
But it is a poignant irony that Martin Richard, the 8-year-old boy who died on Boylston Street, was a Catholic who had received his first Communion just last year. As Martin lay dying, priests were only yards away, beyond the police tape, unable to reach him to administer last rites…
pull quoting. This verse has nothing to do with this situation.
They would have welcomed an Imam coming to the site to praise Allah for the death and dismemberment of the Infidels!
oh, and they’re mad about their wanting to be licentious and the Church not approving.
They want forgiveness and absolution without repentance.
They want Church approval for Birth control, denigration of marriage, homosexual behavior and abortion. And they are having a tantrum to the extent that they would deprive a boy from last rites.
It is pure evil. THey might not realize how evil it is but it is pure evil.
pull quoting. This verse has nothing to do with this situatio
***********
The quote is relevant to this situation. Where the words of the disciples were not being accepted they were told to leave and shake the dust from their shoes. The priests were going there to save souls and they were turned away. What were they supposed to do, pull guns and say “let me through”? No, they shook the dust from their shoes and found another way to give comfort to those that sought it.
The words of the Lord are relevant in any situation.
This is grievous persecution. How many would have cried out ..."Father, Father...help me ...pray for me."
An eight year old Catholic boy lay dieing and the government stops a priest to be an attendant at the boy's side.
It is an interesting psychological trauma inflicted on the victims. An interesting vacume created in the evil chaos.
For your lists.
Think Kenndy's, Catholic in name only
Standard procedure for bombings against civilians. Terrorists plant bombs to target first responders.
The fact that the writer pretends that this only involves ministers from the catholic denomination says a lot, it is no wonder that the Catholic bastion is also a democrat bastion.
Massachusetts is the most Catholic state in America, and this writer is an example of why conservatism is almost non existing in this home of Catholics, his misleading article and his sole focus on Catholic Priests seems to reveal something about Boston and Massachusetts, it is about “Catholic” rather than “Christian”.
I agree with that statement.
If that verse speaks to you in that way, it's okay with me.
I mean no disrespect toward you, but for others reading it, they should know it is not relevant to this case.
Mathew 10
6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
Stop right there! Jesus is sending them to the JEWS only, not gentiles.
7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
9 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep.”
Stop right there! Jesus is instructing them that they should expect and rely on the generosity of others to sustain them on their journey including lodging.
11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.
Stop! “stay at their house”, “enter the home”, “ give it your greeting” ( it = home), “If the home is deserving”, Jesus is talking about a HOME.
” 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town”
Stop right there! Ah hah! gotcha. He said home OR TOWN as in Boston Town. No, I think the meaning here is clear. They are to seek a (Jewish, remember) home that will receive them. If it doesn't they likely would leave shake the dust off their feet and try another home. If they found no home accepting of them they were to leave that town and shake the dust off their feet.
“and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”
Here I would think that it would only “be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah...than..” for the TOWN not for an individual home. He doesn't address what the fate of an individual home would be, but I think it wouldn't be good.
So, as a metaphor this really doesn't work. You can MAKE it work, if you torture the meaning, but I doubt that was His intention. This is why I don't like “pull quoting” ONE verse and not including the context. THE CONTEXT MATTERS! Otherwise you can make the bible say whatever YOU (empirical you), want it to say instead of what God wants it to say.
In this case no harm, no foul, but always defending God's word is important.
Sad to say that so many have lost their way. I’m heartbroken they didn’t allow the priests to do what should have been done. It just makes me work all the harder to gain Heaven. It also is giving us a glimpse into what the world is going to be like once we are gone.
God bless FRiend, and I hope to meet you in Heaven someday. :)
From what I read on a different thread, the argument made was that anyone can purchase a clerical collar for $10 and use it as an excuse to move among the dead and dying. The sad aspect of this, however, is that the young boy was denied the Last Rites Sacrament.
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
I’m a baptist, and not too worried about last rites for myself...but it is obscene to prevent Catholic priests from ministering - and giving last rites, if needed. And like some others on this thread, if I had to choose between a Catholic Priest and a doctor as my last sight on earth...I’ll go with the former. At least he would be someone who probably believes in God the Father, the Son & the Holy Ghost!
I’d rather hear “Go to God and trust Him!” than “This one’s a goner - bring me someone else!”
I’ll add my wife is both a baptist and a nurse, and she has yet to have a Catholic reject her offer of prayer...
I think the focus was on priests because they alone can administer ‘Last Rites’, a Sacrament, to a dying Catholic. In days past, people understood this, in our time people hardly know God and that goes for many faux Catholics.
Doesn’t apply. They ones in need of the priests’ immediate attention didn’t turn away from them, they were prevented from receiving that attention by others. The priests had a duty to disobey the civil authorities and to perform their sacramental rites.
"How can this be right?"
Right it is not. Absolutely unconscionable. Sounds like the Boston police need more training, and possibly a whack on the back of the head from the priests of those cops who are Catholic.
The writer was merely reporting. Priests are important because only they can give the last sacraments to people, and if possible Catholics do not want to die without the last rites (which in some cases include confession).
Protestant ministers may be equally good at comforting people, but that’s not what the sacraments are about and is not the purpose of having a priest come to the scene of a place where people are dying.
Catholic priests are famous for getting into the line of danger themselves in order to minister to the dying, and in fact a Catholic chaplain (who himself was killed) is in the process of canonization for this. They know the risks but they also know the importance of the sacraments, and keeping them out is just simply wrong.
Catholic ministers are no different than Protestant ministers and chaplains in exposing themselves to danger, your post is so fitting in making my point.
I didn’t say they were different in exposing themselves to danger, just that their duties were different. Catholics often wear or carry something that instructs first responders to call a priest, because they wanted the last rites if they remained conscious long enough and at least to be annointed if they were no longer conscious and couldn’t respond.
So denying Catholic priests entry to these sites is not just depriving people of a comforting presence, as it would be in the case of a Protestant who might like to be accompanied by his minister, but depriving them of a vital sacrament. Obviously, God will work it out; but one of the prayers of a Catholic was always to be protected from a “sudden and unprovided death,” meaning one that did not give them time to repent or receive the sacraments.
Of course, now that the State thinks it is the all in all, I guess we’re just supposed to back off and let Homeland Security handle it...
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.