RCC cardinal says they'll shut down all hospitals if they have to

[jayjay]

@Sitnam

But a great trivia question: when was the last time any Catholic set themselves on fire for a religious cause?

1965?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sitnam

I bet he wouldn’t. Someone who sets himself on fire for a cause can still be wrong, and governmental policy protecting the rights of employees that don’t share the faith of their employers and protecting the religious freedom of the employers aren’t mutually exclusive.

But a great trivia question: when was the last time any Catholic set themselves on fire for a religious cause?

I bet he would. Lets get the cardinal to settle our bet.

[miss_elizabeth]

@Cheshire_Human

I was proposing nothing. If that’s the impression you got, it was because you were reading more into my post than I put into it. All I was doing was pointing out that everyone who’s shouting “The government should make them do it the way we want” were neglecting the very real fact that the government can’t. The RCC always has the very real option of quitting, and the people who are demanding the RCC do it a certain way will then have to live with the fact that, for a while at least, no one will be doing it at all, let alone their way.

The only density here is on the part of people who refuse to understand that the RCC can quit, if they don’t want to do what people are demanding they do. I’m not the dense one for pointing that out.

Absolutely no one in this thread has said they cannot quit, or that the government should make them stay open. People said there would be legal consequences if they up and shut their doors. That’s all. And no one said the government should force the hospitals to stay open. People are mostly saying it would be good if the Catholic Church got out of the hospital business.

@Cheshire_Human

Are you people all so dead-set on refusing to understand what I’m saying that you keep making up shit that I never said? Ok. I’m going to try one more time, then I give up.

All the administrators have to do is say “As of this date, we take no more patients. As of this next date, we stop paying for supplies and stop paying staff.” This does NOT involve dumping patients out on the street. Would there be legal repercussions? Of course. The state may fine the hospital corporation, and may (after a few years of legal wrangling) take over the building and equipment without compensation. Arguing that this means they cannot close the hospital is just false. There’s no gun to their head. They can decide to take the financial hit in exchange for not violating what they believe God demands of them. Hell, even if there were a gun to their head, they still have a choice. They can choose to violate what they believe God wants, or they can choose to take the consequences of refusing.

For someone who is so concerned that people aren’t listening to your arguments, you sure don’t read what anyone else says.

NO ONE THINKS THE GOVERNMENT CAN FORCE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO KEEP RUNNING THE HOSPITALS

There will be legal ramifications if they quit in the outlandish manner you described. That is all anyone has said. If you disagree, show me the posts. You are arguing against a strawman here.

[Kobal2]

@jayjay

1965?

Not a religious cause.

[jayjay]

@Kobal2

Not a religious cause.

I don’t think you can reliably say that. Protesting Vietnam was as much of a moral as it was a political act for a lot of people. Norman Morrison’s self-immolation at the Pentagon was certainly informed in large part by his Quaker faith. And the particular brand of Catholicism that Roger Allen Laporte believed quite likely informed his self-immolation.

[Kobal2]

@jayjay

I don’t think you can reliably say that. Protesting Vietnam was as much of a moral as it was a political act for a lot of people. Norman Morrison’s self-immolation at the Pentagon was certainly informed in large part by his Quaker faith. And the particular brand of Catholicism that Roger Allen Laporte believed quite likely informed his self-immolation.

I didn’t say the reasons these individuals had for doing what they did weren’t in part religiously motivated, but the *cause *itself wasn’t. It might have been moral, but not religious - nothing in the Bible says “you have to end all wars”.

Besides, both of them were clearly protesting this particular war, not war in general. Else there’d be people setting themselves on fire at the UN all the time, and the act would lose its admittedly tremendous appeal

[Death_of_Rats]

@Cheesesteak

Yes, I have conducted a thorough study, using a computer simulation of Francis Cardinal George.

Results:
In 99% of the trials, he did not choose to padlock the entrances of hospitals, after rolling the ICU patients to a convenient parking lot.

In the remaining 1%, he flew around Chicago in blue underpants and razed the hospitals with his explosive x-ray vision. Luckily, he only knocked down 3 before Joe Biden arrived in his flying Trans-Am and saved the day.

Am I the only one who is REALLY hoping that the 1% possibility come true? Just for the flying Trans-Am alone.

@Kobal2

Not a religious cause.

He seemed to think it was:

La Porte died the next day from second- and third-degree burns covering 95 percent of his body. Despite his burns, he remained conscious and able to speak. When asked why he had burned himself, La Porte calmly replied, “I’m a Catholic Worker. I’m against war, all wars. I did this as a religious action.”

[tagos]

What would Jesus do, what WOULD he do?

It’s a real puzzler.

Vile organisation.

:rolleyes:

[Kobal2]

@Death_of_Rats

He seemed to think it was:

Yes, well, he set himself on fire, thereby demonstrating he wasn’t particularly bright. At least right up to the point where he lit the match.

[dropzone]

@kenobi_65

You’re correct. I had to do quite a bit of digging around on Advocate’s site to find it, but it was formed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Church of Christ.

Both gay and, especially, contraception-friendly organizations.