Bishop Morlino on Kennedy Funeral

[Ender]

Everyone seems to want to focus on Senator Kennedy. The issue is not the disposition of Senator Kennedy’s soul or his funeral. This issue is how Church leaders can refute heresy and avoid scandal to those trying their best to follow Christ and his teachings.

It is undeniable that the Kennedy funeral caused this question to be raised but, as gakroeger said, the important question really has nothing to do with Kennedy; it is about whether a public, high profile, Catholic funeral is appropriate for a person who’s sins were public and grave.

When Church leaders go out of their way to honor someone who apparently went to meet his Lord without any public display of regret for his efforts to make abortion more readily available to anyone who is so inclined, scandalizes all Catholics who are attempting to live according to Church teaching.

It would certainly seem that this funeral was an occasion for scandal but perhaps we don’t understand what the Church teaches on the subject. Does a person who commits grave, public sins have to make a public display of regret? What does the Church actually teach? I really have no idea, although I did find this in the Catechism of Trent:*The Church, therefore, with great wisdom ordained that when anyone had committed a public crime, a public penance should be imposed on him, in order that others, being deterred by fear, might more carefully avoid sin in future. *

*But with regard to public sinners, as we have already said, they were never absolved until they had performed public penance. *
That last sentence seems pretty self evident, but if it is true then what does it say about the actions of Cardinal O’Malley?

Ender

 

[gakroeger]

Everyone seems to want to focus on Senator Kennedy. The issue is not the disposition of Senator Kennedy’s soul or his funeral. This issue is how Church leaders can refute heresy and avoid scandal to those trying their best to follow Christ and his teachings.

When Church leaders go out of their way to honor someone who apparently went to meet his Lord without any public display of regret for his efforts to make abortion more readily available to anyone who is so inclined, scandalizes all Catholics who are attempting to live according to Church teaching.

How many souls will interpret this reaction by the Church leaders as a green light to follow Senator Kennedy’s example?

The reason I brought up Saint Augustine, is his tireless efforts to denounce all forms of heresy and the need for our current Church leaders to do the same.

Saint Augustine speaks to us today in the divine office prayer:

Reading St Augustine’s sermon On Pastors

We are Christians as well as leaders

You have often learned that all our hope is in Christ and that he is our true glory and our salvation. You are members of the flock of the Good Shepherd, who watches over Israel and nourishes his people. Yet there are shepherds who want to have the title of shepherd without wanting to fulfil a pastor’s duties; let us then recall what God says to his shepherds through the prophet. You must listen attentively; I must listen with fear and trembling.

The word of the Lord came to me and said: Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel and speak to the shepherds of Israel. We just heard this reading a moment ago, my brothers, and I have decided to speak to you on this passage. The Lord will help me to speak the truth if I do not speak on my own authority. For if I speak on my own authority, I will be a shepherd nourishing myself and not the sheep. However, if my words are the Lord’s, then he is nourishing you no matter who speaks. Thus says the Lord God: Shepherds of Israel, who have been nourishing only themselves! Should not the shepherds nourish the sheep? In other words, true shepherds take care of their sheep, not themselves. This is the principle reason why God condemns those shepherds: they took care of themselves rather than their sheep. Who are they who nourish themselves? They are the shepherds the Apostle described when he said: They all seek what is theirs and not what is Christ’s.

I must distinguish carefully between two aspects of the role the lord has given me, a role that demands a rigorous accountability, a role based on the Lord’s greatness rather than on my own merit. The first aspect is that I am a Christian; the second, that I am a leader. I am a Christian for my own sake, whereas I am a leader for your sake; the fact that I am a Christian is to my own advantage, but I am a leader for your advantage.
Many persons come to God as Christians but not as leaders. Perhaps they travel by an easier road and are less hindered since they bear a lighter burden. In addition to the fact that I am a Christian and must give God an account of my life, I as a leader must give him an account of my stewardship as well.

 

[JReducation]

It is undeniable that the Kennedy funeral caused this question to be raised but, as gakroeger said, the important question really has nothing to do with Kennedy; it is about whether a public, high profile, Catholic funeral is appropriate for a person who’s sins were public and grave.

It would certainly seem that this funeral was an occasion for scandal but perhaps we don’t understand what the Church teaches on the subject. Does a person who commits grave, public sins have to make a public display of regret? What does the Church actually teach? I really have no idea, although I did find this in the Catechism of Trent:*The Church, therefore, with great wisdom ordained that when anyone had committed a public crime, a public penance should be imposed on him, in order that others, being deterred by fear, might more carefully avoid sin in future. *

*But with regard to public sinners, as we have already said, they were never absolved until they had performed public penance. *
That last sentence seems pretty self evident, but if it is true then what does it say about the actions of Cardinal O’Malley?

Ender

First of all, you statement about Cardinal O’Malley are uncharitable. Second, there is a new official Catholic Catechism that does not requier a public recant of one’s sins. Third, the current pope himself has not required it of anyone. Tony Blair was welcomed into the Catholic Church. Some Catholics wanted him to recant his positions on abortion and same-sex marriage. The Holy Father’s response was that Tony Blair needs time to grow in the faith and he welcomed him. Father Hans Kung had his teaching license taken away from him, but not his faculties as a priest. Several weeks after his election Pope Benedict XVI invited him to spend an afternoon with him and charged him with the responsibility of ecumenical work in his country. At the end of the afternoon they agreed to disagree on certain issues. The excommunicated bishops of the SSPX were spared the consequences of their excommunication by the pope. They were not asked to recant anything. Every dialogue since the lifting of the excommunication has taken place quietly and the resolution will probably not require any public statement on their part or apology. Bishop Williamson made some horrible remarks about the Shoah, which Pope Benedict condemned, but did not order the Bishop to recant in public, only to distance himself from those opinions. As we can see, the Church no longer demands that people stand and hunble themselves in public in order to receive her mercy.

Finally, Cardinal O’Malley was attended the funeral because it was the diplomatic thing to do. Let us not forget that the Holy See and the United States have diplomatic relations. This was the funeral of a state senator, who was Catholic and who was well known. The funeral took place in the Cardinal’s archdiocese. It is the Cardinal’s duty to represent the Archdiocese and the Holy See at any state affair that takes place in his Archdiocese. It would have looked worse if the Papal Nuncio had traveled to Boston for the funeral. A lower ranking prelate was the best way to go.

The same has to be said about the inernment at the cemetery. The Archbishop of the diocese has the obligation to be present at the funeral of a dignatary, such as a Catholic senator.

Some things are not a matter of choice, but of diplomatic protocol. The Holy Father had to receive the visit of one of the most pro-abortion presidents this country has ever had and he had to be diplomatic, charming and a good host. He did his job very well. None of this means that any of these men agree or support either Mr. Kennedy’s or Mr. Obama’s position on abortion. What it means is that they are doing what is expected of them as Church leaders and as representatives of a sovereign nation called Vatican City State.

Just a hundreds of non believing world leaders flooded the funeral of Pope John Paul II, because he was a popular leader, not because they had faith in the Churh or the Gospel, the Church’s princess are obliged to follow the same rules of diplomacy. Diplomacy is also part of charity and mercy.

Finally, let us keep in mind the good bishops’s letter that was posted on this thread. This is about mercy, not about judgment. The sin is with the person who would delight in denying someone the presence of the Church and her princess at the funeral of a deceased man and the consolation to his family. Let us not forget that Senator Kennedy was not onlhy a politician. He was a husband, father, grandfather, uncle, brother and friend to many people. These people have the right to experience the love of the Church and her leaders. This love is not just for those who are faithful, but for the whole world.

If anyone asks me why there were two cardinals involved with this funeral my answer is very simple. It was the merciful thing to do for those who mourned the death of a loved one and it was their duty to represent the sovereign nation of which we Catholics are all citizens, Vatican City State. If someone has trouble with that, I will recommend that they study diplomacy and study what the CCC has to say on mercy.

We don’t have to be afraid of what others are going to think as long as we are being merciful. We can respond by saying “This is the merciful thing to do and someday, we are going to be in need of the same mercy. Someday our loved ones are going to be in need of the Church’s presence when they are mourning.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

First of all, you statement about Cardinal O’Malley are uncharitable.

Nonsense. In the first place it was a question, not a statement and secondly the answer to that question depended on the answer to another question about what the Church teaches, and I find it hard to believe we are forbidden to ask questions about that.

Second, there is a new official Catholic Catechism that does not requier a public recant of one’s sins.

Excellent, then you can answer my first question. Where in the Catechism does it say that absolution for a grave, public sin does not require public acknowledgment?

Third, the current pope himself has not required it of anyone.

The examples you cite are not directly applicable and do not answer the question I raised. You may infer the answer but what you provide does not prove the answer.

Some things are not a matter of choice, but of diplomatic protocol.

Agreed … but truth is not one of those things.

Finally, let us keep in mind the good bishops’s letter that was posted on this thread. This is about mercy, not about judgment.

This raises another question about the application of mercy but perhaps this isn’t the right thread to discuss it. Besides, if I ask questions about it, you might repeat your judgment about me being uncharitable and I don’t want to present you with another occasion to … err.

The sin is with the person who would delight in denying someone the presence of the Church and her princess at the funeral of a deceased man and the consolation to his family.

Absolutely true; no one should delight in such a situation and I’m pretty sure that no one should presume to find it where it does not exist.

Ender

 

[tweetymom]

First of all, you statement about Cardinal O’Malley are uncharitable. Second, there is a new official Catholic Catechism that does not requier a public recant of one’s sins. Third, the current pope himself has not required it of anyone. Tony Blair was welcomed into the Catholic Church. Some Catholics wanted him to recant his positions on abortion and same-sex marriage. The Holy Father’s response was that Tony Blair needs time to grow in the faith and he welcomed him. Father Hans Kung had his teaching license taken away from him, but not his faculties as a priest. Several weeks after his election Pope Benedict XVI invited him to spend an afternoon with him and charged him with the responsibility of ecumenical work in his country. At the end of the afternoon they agreed to disagree on certain issues. The excommunicated bishops of the SSPX were spared the consequences of their excommunication by the pope. They were not asked to recant anything. Every dialogue since the lifting of the excommunication has taken place quietly and the resolution will probably not require any public statement on their part or apology. Bishop Williamson made some horrible remarks about the Shoah, which Pope Benedict condemned, but did not order the Bishop to recant in public, only to distance himself from those opinions. As we can see, the Church no longer demands that people stand and hunble themselves in public in order to receive her mercy.

Finally, Cardinal O’Malley was attended the funeral because it was the diplomatic thing to do. Let us not forget that the Holy See and the United States have diplomatic relations. This was the funeral of a state senator, who was Catholic and who was well known. The funeral took place in the Cardinal’s archdiocese. It is the Cardinal’s duty to represent the Archdiocese and the Holy See at any state affair that takes place in his Archdiocese. It would have looked worse if the Papal Nuncio had traveled to Boston for the funeral. A lower ranking prelate was the best way to go.

The same has to be said about the inernment at the cemetery. The Archbishop of the diocese has the obligation to be present at the funeral of a dignatary, such as a Catholic senator.

Some things are not a matter of choice, but of diplomatic protocol. The Holy Father had to receive the visit of one of the most pro-abortion presidents this country has ever had and he had to be diplomatic, charming and a good host. He did his job very well. None of this means that any of these men agree or support either Mr. Kennedy’s or Mr. Obama’s position on abortion. What it means is that they are doing what is expected of them as Church leaders and as representatives of a sovereign nation called Vatican City State.

Just a hundreds of non believing world leaders flooded the funeral of Pope John Paul II, because he was a popular leader, not because they had faith in the Churh or the Gospel, the Church’s princess are obliged to follow the same rules of diplomacy. Diplomacy is also part of charity and mercy.

Finally, let us keep in mind the good bishops’s letter that was posted on this thread. This is about mercy, not about judgment. The sin is with the person who would delight in denying someone the presence of the Church and her princess at the funeral of a deceased man and the consolation to his family. Let us not forget that Senator Kennedy was not onlhy a politician. He was a husband, father, grandfather, uncle, brother and friend to many people. These people have the right to experience the love of the Church and her leaders. This love is not just for those who are faithful, but for the whole world.

If anyone asks me why there were two cardinals involved with this funeral my answer is very simple. It was the merciful thing to do for those who mourned the death of a loved one and it was their duty to represent the sovereign nation of which we Catholics are all citizens, Vatican City State. If someone has trouble with that, I will recommend that they study diplomacy and study what the CCC has to say on mercy.

We don’t have to be afraid of what others are going to think as long as we are being merciful. We can respond by saying “This is the merciful thing to do and someday, we are going to be in need of the same mercy. Someday our loved ones are going to be in need of the Church’s presence when they are mourning.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br.JR I know that your words come from Jesus and God Bless you for them:tiphat::bowdown2:

 

[gakroeger]

First of all, you statement about Cardinal O’Malley are uncharitable.

Why, I wonder is this a controversy between Charity and Justice. Are not both a requirement of Christianity?

Are we uncharitable when we point out the need for sticking to the teachings of the Church? Can we not love the sinner and hate the sin? Was Christ uncharitable when he rebuked the money changers or St Peter when he rebuked Christ for explaining the need for him to die on the cross?

It has come to the point where I cringe when I hear someone accuse another Christian of being uncharitable. It has become a tactic to silence anyone who criticizes or rebukes someone for speaking truthfully. I recently had an experience where an individual criticized and resigned from the Knights of Columbus because he was not hired as a field agent. His comment was that the interviewing officer was “uncharitable” because he would not hire him and explained to him why he was not a proper fit for the position.

Again, our comments are not an attack on any person, Kennedy or the Cardinal; the comments are directed toward us being more aware of the damage done to others by not pointing out error. I believe that the reason our society is so deep in approval of abortion and so many Catholics support or ignore it, is precisely because we Christians have been silent (Charitable in the way it is being used) far too long.

It may be true that public display of repentance is no longer required by the Church; however, the basic premise has not changed. Section 2284 of the new catechism states; “Scandal is an attitude of behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense, if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. “And section 2285; “Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature of office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

 

[JimG]

It might have been good for one of the attending clergy to have read this statement from Senator Kennedy:

“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which much be recognized–the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.”

–Sen. Ted Kennedy, Aug 3, 1971

One cannot solely blame the senator for his change of position. When the Democratic Party decided to become the party of abortion, a number of left leaning clergy helped him to formulate a ‘nuanced’ stance which would allow him to support abortion while retaining his political career in the Democratic Party as a pro-abortion Catholic. That was a disservice both to him and to their Faith.

 

[Ender]

It may be true that public display of repentance is no longer required by the Church; however, the basic premise has not changed.

This is the question and you would think there would be a simple yes or no answer. As to whether the basic premise regarding penance explained in the Catechism of Trent has changed, I do not know. JPII did say, however, in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (#30), that the new Rite of Penance “has made its own the whole of the teaching brought together by the Council of Trent." I believe that the specifics detailing the requirements of the rite are contained in Ordo Paenitentiae but that is a document I have so far been unable to locate.

Ender

 

[Oceanon]

“For GOD so Loved the world, that HE gave HIS only begotten SON, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting Life.” (KJV)

Or so the Protestant Bible tells us. Perhaps we know better, though . . .

“For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through HIM might be saved.” (KJV)

Hmmm . . . The Protestants MUST be wrong: Whoever heard of a forgiving GOD? (Certainly not some of the above commentators.) Furthermore, why would GOD Love a sinful world, or eat and drink with sinners?

But, seriously, didn’t your mother ever teach you to PRAY for the dead and not to show disrespect?

Repent, sinners.

 

[tweetymom]

“For GOD so Loved the world, that HE gave HIS only begotten SON, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting Life.” (KJV)

Or so the Protestant Bible tells us. Perhaps we know better, though . . .

“For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through HIM might be saved.” (KJV)

Hmmm . . . The Protestants MUST be wrong: Whoever heard of a forgiving GOD? (Certainly not some of the above commentators.) Furthermore, why would GOD Love a sinful world, or eat and drink with sinners?

But, seriously, didn’t your mother ever teach you to PRAY for the dead and not to show disrespect?

Repent, sinners.

What a novel idea Should have been done long ago instead of all this ya ya about was Kennedy worthy. I really don’t think any of us are worthy of God’s love. You are right on dear friend in Christ:thumbsup:

 

[JReducation]

This issue is almost not worth debating, because there is no solution to it. The senator is dead. The mass is over and the hierarchy has spoken. Where do we expect to go from here?

At some point we have to trust our bishops, if we are to remain in communion with them. Communion with them is a requirement for membership in the Church. As long as they have committed no sin or asked us to commit a sin, there is not much to argue. We can disagree with them, because that is allowed. But in the end, we have to submit to their decisions. They have the freedom and the authority to make pastoral decisions, as well as does the Vatican.

In this case, the Vatican wanted the Cardinal at this funeral and it was done. If we read what was written in the Observatore Romano, the Church’s offcial news paper, the commentary on Senator Kennedy’s death and funeral were very benign. The Vatican’s Communication Director chose not to go the route of public condemnation.

If this is the case that comes down from the top, then we should follow suit. You show mercy to the deceased and compassion and solidarity to his family. I think in this case the Church is more concerned about his family. The senator is dead. He can’t hear or be affected by our dissent with his funeral. But it does hurt his family. They should not be subjected to hurt, because of the senator’s actions or tolerance on abortion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tweetymom]

This issue is almost not worth debating, because there is no solution to it. The senator is dead. The mass is over and the hierarchy has spoken. Where do we expect to go from here?

At some point we have to trust our bishops, if we are to remain in communion with them. Communion with them is a requirement for membership in the Church. As long as they have committed no sin or asked us to commit a sin, there is not much to argue. We can disagree with them, because that is allowed. But in the end, we have to submit to their decisions. They have the freedom and the authority to make pastoral decisions, as well as does the Vatican.

In this case, the Vatican wanted the Cardinal at this funeral and it was done. If we read what was written in the Observatore Romano, the Church’s offcial news paper, the commentary on Senator Kennedy’s death and funeral were very benign. The Vatican’s Communication Director chose not to go the route of public condemnation.

If this is the case that comes down from the top, then we should follow suit. You show mercy to the deceased and compassion and solidarity to his family. I think in this case the Church is more concerned about his family. The senator is dead. He can’t hear or be affected by our dissent with his funeral. But it does hurt his family. They should not be subjected to hurt, because of the senator’s actions or tolerance on abortion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you very much for your as usual kind and loving post.Kennedy indeed cannot be hurt . I hope we all can let him rest in peace God Bless you

 

[Ender]

What a novel idea Should have been done long ago instead of all this ya ya about was Kennedy worthy. I really don’t think any of us are worthy of God’s love.

Here’s another novel idea: read the posts more carefully and comment on what is actually being said. Way back in post 19 gakroeger said: the important question really has nothing to do with Kennedy; it is about whether a public, high profile, Catholic funeral is appropriate for a person who’s sins were public and grave.

The very next post was mine where I repeated the quote above and agreed with it. Neither of us has made any comment about Kennedy; what we have done is to inquire about Church teaching. Clearly the teaching, whatever it is, applies to Kennedy but if there is anyone who determines his worthiness to receive an ecclesiastical funeral it is the Church, not us.

Ender

 

[Ender]

This issue is almost not worth debating, because there is no solution to it. The senator is dead. The mass is over and the hierarchy has spoken. Where do we expect to go from here?

The senator is dead, the mass is over but the hierarchy has not spoken and I don’t agree that there is no solution. That is precisely what I have been asking: what is proper in situations like this?

At some point we have to trust our bishops, if we are to remain in communion with them. Communion with them is a requirement for membership in the Church.

Not exactly. I am bound by what my bishop says; the opinions of random bishops are not binding and this is especially so when the bishops don’t agree.

In this case, the Vatican wanted the Cardinal at this funeral and it was done.

I was unaware that the Vatican requested the Cardinal to attend. What is your source for this?

You show mercy to the deceased and compassion and solidarity to his family.

It has nothing to do with mercy. Funerals are either required, optional, or forbidden depending on the circumstances and I really have a hard time believing there is such a thing as “optional at the discretion of the bishop”. If the Church says a Catholic funeral is required he should have it; if the Church says it is forbidden, that’s the end of it.

Frankly, this whole situation seems exactly analogous to the question of whether high profile Catholics who publicly dissent from a serious Church teaching should receive communion. Some bishops allow it, some don’t and that is an entirely unsatisfactory situation. If you want to see a divided Church all you have to do is look at the disagreements between bishops, a division that is more scandalous than the misbehavior of a gaggle of Catholic politicians.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

Here’s another novel idea: read the posts more carefully and comment on what is actually being said. Way back in post 19 gakroeger said: the important question really has nothing to do with Kennedy; it is about whether a public, high profile, Catholic funeral is appropriate for a person who’s sins were public and grave.

The very next post was mine where I repeated the quote above and agreed with it. Neither of us has made any comment about Kennedy; what we have done is to inquire about Church teaching. Clearly the teaching, whatever it is, applies to Kennedy but if there is anyone who determines his worthiness to receive an ecclesiastical funeral it is the Church, not us.

Ender

If I’m understanding your last sentence correctly, then we’re in agreement. The Church decided that senator Kennedy should have an ecclesiastical funeral and the Church approved the funeral as it was. The Church also expects the Cardinals and archbishops to be present at a high profile funeral in their diocese. This is not an endorsement of the person, but a diplomatic action on the part of the Vatican and an act of mercy toward the deceased and his family and friends who moarn his death.

There is no question in the minds of the prelates and clerics who were at this funeral that it would have been wondeful if Senator Kennedy has supported the pro-life stance. But the reasons for their presence was not to make a statement about the senator’s politics, but about the Church’s mercy and about the Church’s diplomatic relationship with the United States.

One has to observe that at the mass in Boston, the Cardinal presided, but he did not concelebrate. This action is very telling. He is there a prelate, not as a priest or a friar. In other words, his presence is strictly out of respect.

I’ll give you an example. We had a funeral for the father of one of our brothers. This particular brother is an ordained priest. His name is Brother Michael. Brother was the main celebrant at his father’s mass, with the permission of our major superior. Our major superior presided, but did not concelebrate Two bishops also presided, but did not concelebrate. When persons in authority are present, they have the right to concelebrate. But they may choose to preside as a presence of respect and not to concelebrate for whatever reasons they choose. They need not share those with others.

I can’t speak for Cardinal O’Malley, who is also one of our brothers. But I can say that it is unusual for the Ordianry of a diocese not to be the main celebrant at a high profile funeral, unless he has a real issue with it. He may then choose not to concelebrate, but he Vatican protocol does not allow him to absent himself. Why not? Because he is a Cardinal, a prince of the Church and thus represents the Holy See. The Holy See has a mandate to make itself present at any high profile event in any country where it had diplomatic relations, regardless of whether that country or person is a public sinner. This is an issue of diplomacy. The Church has always had to do a balancing act here.

It may be unfortunate, but it is necessary in order to protect the Church’s presence in a country and to preserve her influence with the government of that country.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

The Church decided that senator Kennedy should have an ecclesiastical funeral and the Church approved the funeral as it was.

This is the point I’m contesting; I’m not at all convinced that it is true any more than it is true that the Church speaks when one bishop denies communion while another allows it for the same transgression.

The Church also expects the Cardinals and archbishops to be present at a high profile funeral in their diocese.

I would like to see some documentation about this point. In fact, in his own blog, Cardinal O’Malley said: “As Archbishop of Boston, I considered it appropriate to represent the Church at this liturgy out of respect for the Senator…” That does not sound like the comment of someone who was there only because he had to be.

This is not an endorsement of the person, but a diplomatic action on the part of the Vatican and an act of mercy toward the deceased and his family and friends who mourn his death.

This had nothing to do with the Vatican; this was the Cardinal’s personal decision.

As I said before, however, the question remains as to the appropriateness of this action. Given the information I posted from Canon law, the Catechism of Trent, and Reconciliatio et Penitentia it would appear, just as with their refusal to enforce Canon 915, that the prelates in this instance took the easy way out and did not in fact act as the Church instructs them. This situation will arise again. If those who support the Cardinal’s decision are so sure of the correctness of their position then they should be able to defend it by citing Church documents. That there has not even been an attempt to do so makes their position seem all the weaker.

Ender

 

[tweetymom]

Why oh why cannot anything be done in the name of Christ love and care? Does everything have to be done according to hoyle? I guess I just don’t understand the man is dead and buried and his fate is in Gods hands. Why his funeral would ire some is beyond me. Letd all try and not be so hair spliting about something so trivial. God Bless you Br. JR

 

[gakroeger]

Being a Christian is not easy; Christ’s life on earth was not easy, so obviously anyone attempting to follow Christ on earth will also experience difficulty. Far too many people who call themselves Christians want to just float along and have everything be nice, warm, and fuzzy.

Yes, we are all called to be charitable and I hope everyone on this thread is trying their very best to be charitable to each other, to the memory of Senator Kennedy, and to our Church leaders. However, the thing I believe many are missing is that we are also called to live and spread the gospel of Christ. This means not cherry picking the sections of the bible we agree with and ignoring sections which we find uncomfortable. Some here have even implied that those of us expressing concern over the message being sent by some Church leaders; do not pray. I personally attend Mass, pray the rosary, and the divine office every day.

Several statements have been made here that we must get behind our Church leaders. Unfortunately, this leads to the question of which leaders? I can fully get behind our Pope as he is Christ’s Vicar on earth and I believe that he is infallible on matters pertaining to Church doctrine; again unfortunately, all our Bishops are not together and are sending mixed messages. They are apparently having the same problem we are having on this thread; where is the balance between charity and justice. Where do we draw the line between ignoring or accepting evil and confronting it?

I am of the personal opinion that we have for too long been excepting of some very great evil among us. Abortion has become so common and accepted by our society that those of us who supposedly are opposed to abortion sit quietly by while the most innocent among us are murdered by the millions. We have become so accepting of it that we are expected to sit silently by while one of the most aggressive supporters of this mass murder is honored by leaders of our Church. By honored by our Church I do not mean Senator Kennedy’s funeral, I feel all of God’s children are entitled to a Christian burial as long as they “profess” to be Christian. By honoring I mean being a part of the pomp and circumstance that is promoted by our secular society.

The effect of honoring those who have acted contrary to Church teaching, is to give the impression that what was done by these honorees was not that serious and others can feel free to emulate them.

The fact that some of our Bishops are not in sync with one another or the Pope should not be a surprise; all of our Church leaders are human and subject to the same human failings as the rest of us. This is nothing new in the Church; there have been many Church leaders in the past that were wrong, however Christ has promised that His Church will survive until he returns, the gates of hell will not prevail against it. In the meantime we must remain vigilant; bring an extra flask of oil.

 

[Ender]

Why oh why cannot anything be done in the name of Christ love and care? Does everything have to be done according to hoyle? I guess I just don’t understand the man is dead and buried and his fate is in Gods hands. Why his funeral would ire some is beyond me. Let’s all try and not be so hair splitting about something so trivial. God Bless you Br. JR

On one hand this plea is absolutely reasonable. God is love; he is all about forgiveness, mercy, not judging, etc. The problem is that when this attitude becomes the sum of our faith then it is no longer the faith of Christ but that of Rodney King (“Can’t we all just get along?”)

We are taught that some things are right and others are wrong - so why is it unjustifiable to point it out when someone does things we are told are immoral? When did that become judgmental and uncharitable? When did we become so accommodating with fault that we’re uncomfortable talking about specific examples of it instead of just in generalizations? Was the Kennedy funeral evil? I doubt it. Was it justifiable based on what the Church (as opposed to Hoyle) teaches? I don’t know; that’s what I’ve been asking and so far the only response has been offense that the question was asked.

Ender

 

[tweetymom]

On one hand this plea is absolutely reasonable. God is love; he is all about forgiveness, mercy, not judging, etc. The problem is that when this attitude becomes the sum of our faith then it is no longer the faith of Christ but that of Rodney King (“Can’t we all just get along?”)

We are taught that some things are right and others are wrong - so why is it unjustifiable to point it out when someone does things we are told are immoral? When did that become judgmental and uncharitable? When did we become so accommodating with fault that we’re uncomfortable talking about specific examples of it instead of just in generalizations? Was the Kennedy funeral evil? I doubt it. Was it justifiable based on what the Church (as opposed to Hoyle) teaches? I don’t know; that’s what I’ve been asking and so far the only response has been offense that the question was asked.

Ender

I am not offended that you asked the question only don’t understand why it makes a difference:shrug: