Skip to comments.Despite his own injuries, priest gave last rites to crash victims
Posted on 09/18/2008 11:29:05 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Still in a daze from the crash, Donald Ashman walked over to the first body.
Ashman knelt down and lifted a corner of a white blanket covering the body, placed his hand on the man's forehead and said the words he had said so many times before, almost always at a hospital:
"May God Almighty have mercy upon thee, forgive thee thy sins and bring thee to everlasting life."
The prayer took just a few seconds. Ashman returned the blanket and turned to the next victim, not far from the mangled Metrolink train.
He didn't know their names, their ages, their stories. He knew only that they had died and that they had probably been heading home to their families, as he was, after the workday.
Reflecting on that day now, Ashman also knows, as surely as he has known anything in his 62 years, why he was on that train and why he survived.
He was there to administer their last rites.
"I was where God intended me to be," Ashman said in an interview Wednesday from his home in Thousand Oaks.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I think Mrs. Don-O has your answer.
If the person being given the last rights hasn't been verified as Catholic and/or hasn't asked for 'last rights', I see no difference between doing that a having the Mormons do a 'baptism for the dead' for someone who isn't Mormon and hasn't asked for it.
Like I said, neither offends me. . .but I don't see any difference between the two scenarios from an 'ethical' perspective either.
Doesn't matter to me. The person is dead and his/her eternal destiny has already been sealed.
The dead are given the choice as to whether to accept these ordinances or not.
Um, how are the dead to make a choice?
Oh, big deal. The write down the name of a dead person. I still don't see any difference.
That's the point, isn't it? According to mormons, that makes it justifiable for the "temple work" of baptism of millions who passed on without being exposed to the "restored gospel" of Joseph Smith.
Of course, no one, including the descendants of many of these dead, has given permission for these rituals to be performed, and many are insulted at the liberties taken in doing this.
True, and some might be insulted if a priest were to give last rights to a member of their family without their permission/request.
Okay. Doesn't change the ethical questions involved.
It may not matter to you, but many people would find it offensive to have themselves confirmed a member of a church they heartily disagree with after their dead (and their loved ones may well too). Of course, I don’t personally think it does me any damage, but so what? It’s not you or my personal feelings on having this done that matters. What matters is that apparently many Catholics do not want their names added to the Mormon Church after they die. Those wishes should be respected.
If the Catholic Church starts adding dead people to their rolls, I will take issue with them as well.
And as I've already stated, many people would find it offensive to have 'last rites' administered by a priest from a church they heartily disagree with. From an ethical perspective, I see no difference between the two actions.
One huge difference is that of one scenario being a policy and practice of the corporation, the other being a spontaneous act of an individual. But I suppose you can't tell which is which.
This priest was not a Catholic priest. I believe he was an Anglican priest.
No difference. In either case, a dead individual is put through a religious 'ceremony' they or their family members may not have wanted.
Being a convert,a long time now,I love the fact that we are all family. Christ conquered death. Besides God’s time is not our time. A gesture of love of prayer for mercy I do believe that Jesus did it first. Lazarus. Prayer for mercy is indeed an act of love. Have you ever prayed for something and you had to wait a long time and it was something that time was immediate but you still prayed and waited for God’s mercy. And after a long time boom there it was,a small miracle God gave you in his time not ours.
some might be insulted if a priest were to give last rights to a member of their family without their permission/request.
If yo0u mean “priest” as in the Christian faith, Catholic or a Protestant denomination...
No I would not, personalloy...
I would be thankful to the kind man who did such a thing for my loved one...
If you mean “priest” as in the mormon cult...
Yes, I would be perturbed...
No. In one case, we have a ceremony performed in the name of known dead individual (dead and buried) whose name has been obtained despite explicit requests not to by one faith, conducted by the other faith in accordance to that other faith's institutional policies and procedures. In the other case, we have a prayer offered for an apparently mortally wounded, but possibly alive person, by an individual acting according to the immediate urgency of the moment.
Good for him.
Some people see no difference in apples and oranges either, I guess. Having someone say a prayer over one is not in anyway the same as having them join a church! But hey, it takes all kinds, and if you can’t see the difference, I doubt anyone here is going to change your mind.
Specifically explain what the difference is the to individual if something is done to them against their will, whether it be a due to a policy of an organization or a choice of an individual.
What difference does it make to the individual to whom either is done?
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.