News-Record.com

"Forson denied that he was blocking ambulances and said several other cars were parked in the same area where he parked. There were four cars in front of me, he said. It's not like it was only my car that was there.City Councilman Vincent. To me this is just another episode in the continuing saga of the city out of control with ticketing"

you just gotta love this stuff.....some people always looking for special entitlements. the priest (their word not mine) offers a lame excuse that others were parked there so it is alright if he parks there and even denies he was blocking ambulances. didn't he state he was inside the hospital for twenty minutes, how cold he possibly know if he did or did not block ambulances ??
you broke the law (just like the guy married to multiple women) PAY THE FINE !!
the councilmans comment is halarious ' a city out of control'...how dare those police officer execute their responsibilities ! !
anyone rememeber the old "beretta" theme song.....
" if you can't do the time then don't do the crime"

Reminds me of similar people that hang handicap things on their rearview mirror, but they're very obviously not handicap.

If they do get special privileges for parking, I suggest we all head over to the Universal Life Church site and get ordained so we can all have special parking. Ridiculous.

This is a dilemma for me. The priest was rushing to do his professional duty. So I am at odds on how this transpires. While obviously the priest was in violation of the law, if he were only there 20 minutes (supposedly), exceptions could be made.

Better yet, why does the hospital not provide clergy parking near Emergency Room and General entrances so that those folks do not have to search for parking spaces. This is a wonderful example of why it may need to be investigated.

Shalom

"Reminds me of similar people that hang handicap things on their rearview mirror, but they're very obviously not handicap."

Well, that's a somewhat different issue. I know of a few folks at least who look every bit as healthy as any football player, but they have heart conditions and can't walk but a few dozen yards at a time. So I never pester anyone with a handicapped placard, regardless of how they look at a glance.

darryl,
you make an excellent point about hospitals providing parking. but i don't see how you can place a 'time limit' on illegal parking (illegal is illegal right). in this case the car was parked in an ambulance only zone, so no telling how much if any damage was done by his illegal parking. i still say he should suck it up and pay for his mistake.

While it is true that “the law is the law;” we ARE talking about a genuine religious act of mercy, whether you agree with the last rites thing or not. For Catholics, it’s a VERY important thing; as the proper taking of Communion (if there is time) is directly linked with being in a state of grace at death. Although not from a Catholic viewpoint, I have administered last rites many times, and consider it a genuine ministry to the dying. Even Baptists pray for the dying.

Yes, he knew full well that he was in violation of the legal statute, and one where a possible medical emergency could be affected by impeding ambulance access. But perhaps a little slack might have been shown the ardent priest – not because he’s a Catholic priest, but because he was attending to a hospital patient in spiritual need. But, if after a respectful request for leniency was made, and then rejected by the authorities, he should have simply paid the fine and left it in God’s hands. We should never EXPECT special treatment, even when it makes sense to us; but there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with asking. After all, the Scripture says, “You have not, because you ask not” in relation to requests to God – even human beings show mercy and understanding – even judges! Doesn’t hurt.

"Yes, he knew full well that he was in violation of the legal statute, and one where a possible medical emergency could be affected by impeding ambulance access."

One has to wonder what he would have thought if it had happened that his car had turned out to block emergency vehicles while he was inside? What if a person had died because of it? One also has to wonder how far afield this man searched for a place to park his car? Would he have been willing to park 2 blocks away? We don't know the area, but these are interesting questions.

And what if he had been a few minutes "too late"? Surely this has happened before. SURELY there is room for human error in these situations. But I can't imagine condoning the potential of putting others in need of medical assistance at risk for this sort of thing. The priest's protest that "other people were doing it" sounds too juvenile for words. He needs to be a man, for crytin' out loud.

This is why we have courts: to sort out all the questions we have regarding the contingencies. Sometimes, in pressure situations(and we've all been there), we just make the best judgments we can . I assume that's what he did. The real issue here is not judging the priest for his actions (we don't know ALL the info; but his and the church's actions afterward. I agree with you, Eric, that he should just suck up, pay the fine and let it go. Pushing for special consideration is a Pandora's Box one should only open if he has a very strong case. He doesn't. The ambulance parking issue really does raise questions that weaken his case.

nikos,
you say that to catholics it is a VERY important thing to receives last rites ( i believe it has been renamed to anointing of the sick ? ). what is the ramification to a non catholic believer if they receive no such rites ? also what is the ramification to a cathloic who dies before a priest can administer the rite ?

Reading this, I recall that JFK was most certainly dead before having his "last rites" administered. I don't think the Church would indicate a problem in such cases. Not if they had any sense of the needs of humans living in a real world...

You’re right, Buz, the RCC post-Vatican II term is “Anointing of the Sick.” I believe that this was a good move on their part. The Church had always tended to the sick, even before the Church made it a sacrament. There are, of course, only two “major” or “dominical” sacraments: Baptism and Holy Communion. The term, “last rites” is a technical term (rites are the TEXT of administration, not the ritual acts) referring to the prayers (and Sacrament if possible) that are administered to the dying person as a means of comfort and assurance as they pass from the physical into the spiritual, or heavenly realm; which are found in other churches as well (Anglican, Orthodox, etc)

The RC positions in regard to grace, justification and Purgatory are also involved, but time and space do not permit extended treatment of these issues here. Suffice it to say that the sacrifice of Christ’s corporeal body (transubstantiation) in the Mass is believed by the RCC to cleanse the communicant of sin, and the RC believer desires to enter the afterlife cleansed in order to shorten his time in Purgatory. If he dies, having not confessed and been absolved of a mortal sin, “. . . it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell . . .” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1861, p. 456)

The view of the evangelical, Reformed Church is that one is either “in Christ” (saved), or is not, because it is WHOLLY dependent on Christ’s all-sufficient atoning sacrifice and not on our works - before salvation or after. Extreme disciplines may be executed upon believers to move them back to obedience (Acts 5. 1-11; I Tim. 1. 18-20) but they finally go to heaven. This is the peace and assurance of the Gospel of grace. All “works” systems lead to doubt, insecurity and more works. But there ARE temporal consequences to sin, and our eternal reward IS affected; and so we are exhorted in Scripture not to take God’s grace for granted (Rom. 6.1 “Shall we continue to sin . . .).

The Sacraments are very important confirmations and strengthenings of salvation from the Reformed catholic perspective, and convey sanctifying grace to the recipient to live the Christian life. But the believer goes immediately into the presence of God at death by virtue of being IN CHRIST by faith, NOT because of sacraments, prayers or a paucity of works. His heavenly REWARD is affected by faithfulness on earth, but not his entrance into heaven. (II Cor. 5. 9-11) Thus the idea of Purgatory is also rejected, for the same reasons – Christ’s sacrifice is fully able to atone for ALL sin: no further payment - or punishment - is needed. We are, nevertheless, admonished to prepare for our heavenly reward and live lives worthy of the grace we have received. (Heb. 6. 9-12; Eph. 4.1)

nikos,
thank you for the information. i am fairly familiar with all you stated but was becoming a little wooried that perhaps you did not believe that Christ's atonement was ALL sufficient for our salvation. i do remember you once stating their was much you liked about the rcc but there were certain issues you had with them...i can see here that you understand that last rites, works, transubstantiation etc . add not one jot or tittle to the finished work of the cross. it sounds as though your background is catholic and that somewhere along the line you met Jesus and your life was forever altered, praise God. have a great weekend and thanks for your response.