Why is there a contract? Why doesn’t the local church have someone there?

I’m not very religious but the fact that there is a contract there to provide religious services of any kind takes away any sympathies for every party but the patients.

And service members aren’t being denied. Chaps can go down to Walter Reed for any Sailor, and would for any service member also.

More information is needed here. Parish priests regularly visit their parishners in the hospital. However it appears that this contract involves much more than that. The Catholic Church is BOTH a business and a ministry.

Does this have anything at all to do with 1500 catholic men and women ( that we know about) having sex acts with children , and six thousand people knowing about it and not reporting it ?

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Does this have anything at all to do with 1500 catholic men and women ( that we know about) having sex acts with children , and six thousand people knowing about it and not reporting it ?

Clearly you have a problem with the Catholic church. That's something you and the man upstairs can discuss when your time comes. Until then? Kindly keep it to yourself and the fuck out of my thread.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Does this have anything at all to do with 1500 catholic men and women ( that we know about) having sex acts with children , and six thousand people knowing about it and not reporting it ?

No, bendable, it does not.
I could say more, but that's a different topic.

I’m not sure why some posters are asking about a “contract” or why the services were paid.

At your local church/parish/gathering, the pastor is compensated normally with housing, food and clothing - all of this is paid for by the members of that church, through donations.

Walter Reed MC serves over a million people a year, so to ask any nearby church to cover that would logistically be impossible, from a manpower standpoint and also from an expense standpoint. It takes an entire order of monks/priests, and the new contractor is also being paid as well to provide the individuals.

Just asking ,
Born and raised roman Catholic,
Catechism the whole bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
Does this have anything at all to do with 1500 catholic men and women ( that we know about) having sex acts with children , and six thousand people knowing about it and not reporting it ?

Clearly you have a problem with the Catholic church. That's something you and the man upstairs can discuss when your time comes. Until then? Kindly keep it to yourself and the fuck out of my thread.

Bendable didn’t deserve that. It’s a valid question.

There is a reason that people do not discuss religion and politics. Being honest about it BOTH Bendable and Gustofer have valid points.
We are still lacking important details about what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
There is a reason that people do not discuss religion and politics. Being honest about it BOTH Bendable and Gustofer have valid points.
We are still lacking important details about what happened.

I don’t disagree with you that there’s not enough details to get upset about.

But, I’m curious to the point that Gustofer made that you think is valid. That if you question criminal activity by the church that somehow you’ll have to answer for it standing before God?

I brought it up during class last week, the Catholic Church has more than lost the right to be upset about injustices.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Bendable didn’t deserve that. It’s a valid question.

How is the question pertinent to the topic at hand?

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Bendable didn’t deserve that. It’s a valid question.

How is the question pertinent to the topic at hand?

Y’all gonna play stupid now? If you need that question answered for you then you’re probably not smart enough to understand the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Bendable didn’t deserve that. It’s a valid question.

It is?

Help a brother out. Draw me a possible "line"-- however dotted, broken, curved, or whatever-- between child abuse by clergy (not at WRAMC) and the contract for pastoral services (at WRAMC).

Not a concern all cleared up.

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:

Y’all gonna play stupid now? If you need that question answered for you then you’re probably not smart enough to understand the answer.

Get the crayons out then, ‘cause I’m not seeing it. Looking at DennisM’s post, I’m not the only one.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Bendable didn’t deserve that. It’s a valid question.

How is the question pertinent to the topic at hand?

Because this is a discussion forum. People easily made the jump down other rabbit holes that were not pertinent to the “facts” in evidence. So, as a possible reason, why isn’t the question valid? Because, for their own highly personal reasons, some take offense as a possible motive? Hell, the OP blamed communism, which is a far fetch in the OP based upon the limited information of the article, if at all true.

If you actually read and comprehend the article, the church lost the contract. The new contract provider provides services to more than just Catholics.

We can blame communism. We can blame persecution. We can blame all these other motives not entered into evidence. But, bringing up the churches past misdeeds, in an honest question, not asked in snarky fashion deserves the threat of eternal condemnation? And the question itself is some kind of a “stretch”? And those that question the motives of the church “clearly have a problem with the church”? I have no problem with the church. But, I also know that churches run on money, and despite what some say, they are a business. If they weren’t, why would they even care about having a tax free status? I also know that it is established that these misdeeds by the church happened. It’s not in dispute. And some people wonder about how it affects the day to day.

Bendable’s question was surely more in line with the topic than the response. He didn’t deserve the response He got. Nothing about his question was personal. If anything it was an opportunity to educate him, me and some others about the topic. Instead, he got told to stay the fuck out of this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Bendable didn’t deserve that. It’s a valid question.

How is the question pertinent to the topic at hand?

Because this is a discussion forum. People easily made the jump down other rabbit holes that were not pertinent to the “facts” in evidence. So, as a possible reason, why isn’t the question valid? Because, for their own highly personal reasons, some take offense as a possible motive? Hell, the OP blamed communism, which is a far fetch in the OP based upon the limited information of the article, if at all true.

If you actually read and comprehend the article, the church lost the contract. The new contract provider provides services to more than just Catholics.

We can blame communism. We can blame persecution. We can blame all these other motives not entered into evidence. But, bringing up the churches past misdeeds, in an honest question, not asked in snarky fashion deserves the threat of eternal condemnation? And the question itself is some kind of a “stretch”? And those that question the motives of the church “clearly have a problem with the church”? I have no problem with the church. But, I also know that churches run on money, and despite what some say, they are a business. If they weren’t, why would they even care about having a tax free status? I also know that it is established that these misdeeds by the church happened. It’s not in dispute. And some people wonder about how it affects the day to day.

Bendable’s question was surely more in line with the topic than the response. He didn’t deserve the response He got.

Agree completely

One of the things glossed over is that the new contractor CANNOT provide services to Catholics.

So they are incapable of fulfilling their contract terms, which is interesting…

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
One of the things glossed over is that the new contractor CANNOT provide services to Catholics.

So they are incapable of fulfilling their contract terms, which is interesting…

If you’re familiar with military chaplains then you would know that a given unit, which may or may not be big enough for a chaplain, will have access to a chaplain, but said chaplain may be one of a number of denominations. Being provided a catholic priest is not in the terms of service, having access to a chaplain is.

So this story does not read right to my active duty eyes.

All these tolerant Catholics aren’t up in arms that service members practicing Judaism don’t have access to a Rabbi in most locations.