1neophyte:
That’s a totally subjective assessment. You can easily find those who would think it scandalous to deny someone a funeral mass. I agree that the bishop-against-bishop environment is unfortunate, but how do we determine who is “right”? If, in some alternate universe, a rogue Muslim were to give a funeral to an unrepentant sinner after every priest and bishop did their correct religious “duty” by refusing to do one, we would find ourselves right in the middle of the Good Samaritan parable. Which “side” would you want to be in that parable?
It’s an objective assessment. As Trent Horn mentioned in his article, would it have been objectively scandalous if mobsters like John Gotti and Paul Castellano had received ecclesiastical funerals? Most likely. The case is the same for same sex couples who have a state-sanctioned marriage. But as Bishop Paprocki notes:
Jesus began his public ministry proclaiming the Gospel of God with these words: “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). Applying this biblical teaching to the specific issue of funeral rites, people who had lived openly in same-sex “marriage,” like other manifest sinners that give public scandal, can receive ecclesiastical funeral rites if they have given some signs of repentance before their death.
Those who truly find it scandalous that such unrepentant persons are denied the Rite of Christian Burial are, in several cases, the same people who typically don’t find state sanctioned same-sex marriage inappropriate or immoral.
I think your analogy of a “rogue Muslim” fails, though. First off, a Muslim cannot preside over the Rite of Christian Burial, much less the Sacrifice of the Mass. Moreover, the priests and bishops in this “alternate universe” have done their pastoral duty by compassionately ensuring their flock is not scandalized by a public funeral for an unrepentant man who married another man in a state marriage ceremony. The Muslim can do whatever he wants, but he’s not responsible for the souls of the people in said bishops’ dioceses. He doesn’t resemble the Good Samaritan at all. The Good Samaritan was looking out for the good of another. The priests and bishops more closely mirror the Good Samaritan in your analogy, as they desired the good of another, namely, their flock. This, of course, doesn’t mean that said bishops or priests would not have prayed for the deceased person, for praying for them would indeed be looking out for the good of another.
In your other post, you said, “But on the other hand, is it harmful to to pray for an unrepentant sinner? Is God displeased if an open and unrepentant sinner receives the same Christian burial as a lifelong devout Catholic? Or is it only elder-brothers-of-prodigal-sons who are displeased?”
Of course it’s not harmful to pray for an unrepentant sinner. But as I noted previously, this doesn’t have to take place in the context of a Christian burial, which by its nature is a public event. Any person, and I do mean
any person (Catholic or non-Catholic), can have the Holy Mass offered up for their intention. This includes the deceased man who civilly married another person of the same sex. You could offer up a Mass for the Unabomber if you wanted to, or John Gotti. But a public Rite of Christian Burial is another story. So the question isn’t “Is God displeased if an open and unrepentant sinner receives the same Christian burial as a lifelong devout Catholic?” Rather, the question should be “Would God be displeased if ‘any of these little ones’ are led into sin due to the scandal given by a public funeral rite?” This is why the Church forbids Christian burial in the face of manifest, unrepentant sinners; the Church is trying to protect those whose salvation is still being worked out on Earth.
But as Abucs pointed out, “When it comes right down to it there are only very small numbers who are affected.” Bishop Paprocki has merely made provisions for such uncommon cases. To suggest that anyone who agrees with Bishop Paprocki’s reaffirmation of Church teaching is like the Prodigal Son’s older brother is a bit unfair. I appreciate the compassion that the Bishop shows towards his flock, and the compassion he shows towards the deceased in not disallowing a Mass Intention to be offered for the repose of the soul of the deceased.
I don’t believe this was posted in the other thread, but once the media grabbed a hold of the story,
Bishop Paprocki released this statement on the decree he issued. It would be good for all here to review his words:
These norms regarding same-sex “Marriage” and related pastoral issues are necessary in light of changes in the law and in our culture regarding these issues. Jesus Christ himself affirmed the privileged place of marriage in human and Christian society by raising it to the dignity of a sacrament. Consequently, the Church has not only the authority, but the serious obligation, to affirm its authentic teaching on marriage and to preserve and foster the sacred value of the married state. Regarding the specific issue of funeral rites, people who had lived openly in same-sex marriage, like other manifest sinners that give public scandal, can receive ecclesiastical funeral rites if they have given some signs of repentance before their death. Jesus began his public ministry proclaiming the Gospel of God with these words: “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). People with same-sex attraction are welcome in our parishes in the Catholic Diocese of Springfield in Illinois as we repent our sins and pray for God to keep us in His grace.
