Posted on 03/31/2005 3:02:29 PM PST by hipaatwo
I agree.
The LEAST he could do is let the family handle the funeral and burial. He needs to close an UGLY chapter with SOME decency.
The heck with the resume ... I'd torch HIM.
I was not prepared to learn that they are Lutherans.
Speaking of weddings, in the eyes of the church, does Terri's death now make MS a widower now able to marry the "devout catholic" mistress, with full blessings of the church?
I'm assuming that since she was a practicing Catholic, she would have observed the Church's rules concerning marriage.
I added no keywords when I posted this thread. It has been brought to my attention that they were added and in no way do they reflect my sentiments. I didn't know that keywords can be added by someone other than the poster of the article. Can you please remove them. Thank you.
Yes. They are free to marry. The only thing that would disqualify their getting married would be if the mistress has a husband still living.
Actually, I know you know, but I didn't until you posted the name of Lisa McPherson and of course I 'googled' it. Posted the link above for lurkers.
I'd guess they aren't much of anything but were baptized at one time in the Lutheran church.
People say she was a practicing Catholic, but people are saying a lot of things that aren't proven. I just was curious, because people are claiming a Catholic funeral would have been so important to her, why then, did she marry a Lutheran, and did she marry him in a Lutheran, secular or Catholic wedding, if anyone knows. It might be a clue as to how Catholic she actually was. I think a lot of people are putting their words in her mouth.
It would certainly be possible that the language I quoted might be used deceptively. I would not, however, consider it a good example of deceptive language without context because IMHO the context, more than the statement of itself, would be the major clue as to its veracity.
Indeed, as I think about it, I would argue that the verb tense doesn't change. The verb "could" in that context is nothing more nor less than the past tense of the verb "can", used metaphorically. Although normal usage would be to rewrite sentences using "can" using the alternate form "to be able to" [thus "I can go to the store" would become "I was able to go to the store"] certain verbs dealing with perception have metaphorical meanings when combined with "can" that don't really work with the alternate form.
Consider "I can smell the new carpeting" with "I smell the new carpeting", "I am smelling the new carpeting", or "I am able to smell the new carpeting". The first sentence indicates that I am right now perceiving the odors from the new carpeting but am not seeking them out or otherwise acting upon them. The second sentence suggests that that I actively seek out or analyze the odors from the carpet. The third sentence indicates that I am actively seeking out or analyzing odors from the carpet. The fourth sentence says that when I am in the presence of the new carpeting I can perceive its odor, but it does not say that I am doing so right now.
I would say that the past tense forms of these sentences would be "I could smell the carpet", "I smelled the carpet", "I was smelling the carpet", and "I was able to smell the carpet". I know that grammar school teachers would frown upon using "could" as the past-tense form of "can", but I know of no other construct to give the same meaning.
A better example for the web-site author to have used might have been "As the thief walked near me, I could kick him". There, the verb "could" is clearly not in the past perfect tense. Depending upon context, it might be in the past imperfect tense; unless the rest of the narrative was in the imperfect tense, however, [e.g. "While I was tied up, the thief paced back and forth. As the thief walked by me, I could kick him. Since he wore padded boots, however, he just ignored it."] such usage would seem strange.
Jodi is divorced, so they will not be having a Catholic ceremony.
Anyone know if it will be in a Catholic cemetery as required by the Catholic Faith [to be in consecrated ground]?
A Catholic cemetery is not a "required by the Catholic Faith"
Terri will also be denied the Mass of the Resurrection...another slap at her parents and Catholics.
She will have a funeral mass, but her body won't be there.
He would not allow daily Communion.
She couldn't swallow, it might have killed her early.
I am having a hard time understanding why the Shindlers are not given the respect to bury their daughter with all the Rites of the Catholic Church.
People sometimes don't realize the funeral mass is not a sacrament, but a celebration. And she can have one, body or not.
I am sure they would rather have a Mass of Resurrection, but that is not possible without a body.
That is not correct. I have been to such a mass without the body.
Better yet, why not let the parents have a Catholic service, blessing of the body and then he can have his cremation?
Not a bad idea. But I think the animosity and distrust is too great.
It had to have been. Catholics are only allowed to be married in a Catholic church, even in mixed marriages.
This isn't true. To be married in the Catholic church, they must be a priest in attendance, along with certain ceremonies, that must be performed. But these can be integrated into another ceremony at another church.
"Sure, Mom and Dad, come on up. You can stay at the house. Bring some protestors with you if you like. And I'm trying to work out the program for the service, so let me know when you want to scream "MURDERER" at me."
Thanks for the thoughts.
Wedding Date and Ceremony:
November 10, 1984 at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church in Southhampton, Pennsylvania.
Sounds like the first commercial for the upcoming book.
I'm sure OJ wanted to bury Nicole without Fred Goldman being present.
Felos is a nutjob. He thrives on death. Ideally he'd like to do this to all disabled people. How he described Terri looking "beautiful" is absurd. No one looks "beautiful" starving to death but Felos wasn't the one on trial. Our culture has allowed these nuts to go unchecked under the First Amendment. Ask any idiot on FR and eventually one will state something like I'll fight to the death to give the person the right to voice their views. I sure wouldn't do that with Felos. Let him be silenced though shame on his views. So our general culture has contributed to what we see going on in the courts. NOW, we are seeing the results of what we have sown.
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.