Bishop: Pastors Must Deny Funerals to Catholics in Same-Gender Marriages

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padres1969
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Padres1969

Guest
Springfield, Illinois’ Bishop Thomas Paprocki has come out with new guidelines for how pastors in his diocese are to handle LBGT couples in open same sex relationships.
Addressing the sacraments, (Bishop) Paprocki said people in same-gender marriages should neither seek to receive nor be admitted to Holy Communion because their relationships are of an “objectively immoral nature.” Most strikingly, the bishop decreed about funeral rites:
Click to expand...
“Unless they have given some signs of repentance before their death, deceased persons who had lived openly in a same-sex marriage giving public scandal to the faithful are to be deprived of ecclesiastical funeral rites. In case of doubt, the proper pastor or parochial administrator is to consult the local ordinary [bishop]
, whose judgment is to be followed (cf. c. 1184).”
Click to expand...
…

Pastors are further instructed to accept children whose parents are in a same-gender marriage for the Sacraments of Initiation, though pastors must use “due discretion in determining the appropriateness of the public celebration of the baptism.” Likewise, such children are to be admitted to Catholic schools and religious education, but the family “must agree to abide by the Family School Agreement.”
Click to expand...
 
The funerary guideline in particular is raising eyebrows and has already illicited a response from the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications consultant Father James Martin via his Facebook page.
If bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments, women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock, members of straight couples who are living together before marriage, and anyone using birth control. For those are all against church teaching as well. Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor, or care for the environment, and anyone who supports torture, for those are church teachings too. More basically, they must ban people who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful, for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings. To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a “sign of unjust discrimination” (2358).
Click to expand...
facebook.com/FrJamesMartin
 
Will Fr. Martin’s public response to the Bishop receive the same rebuke from those deriding the Cardinals’ dubia?
 
Michael1978 said:
Will Fr. Martin’s public response to the Bishop receive the same rebuke from those deriding the Cardinals’ dubia?
Click to expand...
Is it a statement that deserves a rebuke? I mean Fr Martin’s point is well made in that it seems by this ruling that the Bishop is singling out gays and lesbians in same sex relationships for special scrutiny while ignoring “sins” that are of a similar nature and matter.
 
Padres1969 said:
Is it a statement that deserves a rebuke? I mean Fr Martin’s point is well made in that it seems by this ruling that the Bishop is singling out gays and lesbians in same sex relationships for special scrutiny while ignoring “sins” that are of a similar nature and matter.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
I am deeply troubled by this directive. I feel it is going to do a lot more harm to the Church than good.
We have to uphold the truth of the faith and I am not sure if singling out one sinner over another is what Jesus had in mind.
 
Padres1969 said:
Is it a statement that deserves a rebuke? I mean Fr Martin’s point is well made in that it seems by this ruling that the Bishop is singling out gays and lesbians in same sex relationships for special scrutiny while ignoring “sins” that are of a similar nature and matter.
Click to expand...
Perhaps one might read it that way …a person who has a child out of wedlock unless they passed away almost immediately - would have time to have repented - so unless they were publicly advocating for people to have unmarried sexual relations - that is not a visible sign of public scandal.

One could agree that divorced remarried Catholic - who failed undertake any effort to regularize their situation is giving public scandal - especially if well known…though for some people in this situation that reality may not be known at all - even by their priest …

As for caring for the environment and the poor - well that is so subjective as to be a non- issue … 🤷 really - who is going to become the recycling monitor and who checks the punch card that shows one served at the local soup kitchen or is Father going to have a can food counter and poor box monitor as people enter and leave the Church …

Public scandal is a real risk - a risk to peoples salvation …

I care for people who are living alternative life styles - I dont have to approve of their lifestyle even as I love and respect other aspects of their lives - just as I hope people did not approve of mine when I failed to live up to what is expected … I can speak as one who was denied access to the Sacraments while I was working through regularizing my life - three years of never missing Mass while not receiving the Sacraments … what would my soul have gained if I had been granted access … well - I guess something between “sickness” and “death” . .at least that is what scripture tells us 🤷 …
 
YADA said:
Perhaps one might read it that way …a person who has a child out of wedlock unless they passed away almost immediately - would have time to have repented - so unless they were publicly advocating for people to have unmarried sexual relations - that is not a visible sign of public scandal.

One could agree that divorced remarried Catholic - who failed undertake any effort to regularize their situation is giving public scandal - especially if well known…though for some people in this situation that reality may not be known at all - even by their priest …

As for caring for the environment and the poor - well that is so subjective as to be a non- issue … 🤷 really - who is going to become the recycling monitor and who checks the punch card that shows one served at the local soup kitchen or is Father going to have a can food counter and poor box monitor as people enter and leave the Church …

Public scandal is a real risk - a risk to peoples salvation …

I care for people who are living alternative life styles - I dont have to approve of their lifestyle even as I love and respect other aspects of their lives - just as I hope people did not approve of mine when I failed to live up to what is expected … I can speak as one who was denied access to the Sacraments while I was working through regularizing my life - three years of never missing Mass while not receiving the Sacraments … what would my soul have gained if I had been granted access … well - I guess something between “sickness” and “death” . .at least that is what scripture tells us 🤷 …
Click to expand...
So in your view is the sin the sin, or is the sin the bishop is really punishing them for the “public scandal”?

Not that I necessarily agree that the other “sins” that Fr Martin lists don’t typically have a public component to them as well (without repenting), particularly divorce, divorce/remarriage, even child out of wedlock, etc… All are typically quite widely publicly known and often aren’t repented of by the “sinner”.
 
Padres1969 said:
So in your view is the sin the sin, or is the sin the bishop is really punishing them for the “public scandal”?

Not that I necessarily agree that the other “sins” that Fr Martin lists don’t typically have a public component to them as well (without repenting), particularly divorce, divorce/remarriage, even child out of wedlock, etc… All are typically quite widely publicly known and often aren’t repented of by the “sinner”.
Click to expand...
The original Bishop mentioned the public scandal - but it cannot be a public scandal without the underlying sin - can it?

I think the public scandal aspect is the person is saying - in a public way - What I am doing is not a sin [though the Church teaches that it is] and I do not need to change my actions - the Church needs to change their calling it a sin …

If one is living and married in a same sex relationship - openly … does that not give public scandal? -

Especially if one then seeks to be accepted - publicly to the Sacramental life of the Church?

Last Sunday at Mass - Father spoke during his homily about the need to seek our hearts and repent - Go to Confession before receiving the Body of Christ. That we are not to receive in a state of mortal sin - that is not healthy for us …

So are you saying that it is okay to live in open opposition [and without repentance] to what the Church teaches is morally sinful and still partake in the Sacramental life … where specifically the Eucharist is the reality and sign of our Common Faith and that would not be a cause of scandal and confusion - because that is a new idea to me :confused:
 
CHAPTER II.

THOSE TO WHOM ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS MUST BE GRANTED OR DENIED

Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.

§2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.

§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.

Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

**3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
**
§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.
 
YADA said:
The original Bishop mentioned the public scandal - but it cannot be a public scandal without the underlying sin - can it?

I think the public scandal aspect is the person is saying - in a public way - What I am doing is not a sin [though the Church teaches that it is] and I do not need to change my actions - the Church needs to change their calling it a sin …

**If one is living and married in a same sex relationship - openly … does that not give public scandal? - **

Especially if one then seeks to be accepted - publicly to the Sacramental life of the Church?

Last Sunday at Mass - Father spoke during his homily about the need to seek our hearts and repent - Go to Confession before receiving the Body of Christ. That we are not to receive in a state of mortal sin - that is not healthy for us …

So are you saying that it is okay to live in open opposition [and without repentance] to what the Church teaches is morally sinful and still partake in the Sacramental life … where specifically the Eucharist is the reality and sign of our Common Faith and that would not be a cause of scandal and confusion - because that is a new idea to me :confused:
Click to expand...
No obviously from the Catholic POV it’s not ok to live in open opposition to what the RCC teaches.

And even if I were to accept the RCC’s view on same sex relationships/marriage, and that the bishop is even correct in applying this punitive measure in death against those in open SS relationships the question remains as Fr. Martin posed it… why are same sex relationships being singled out?

I mean equally, from a Catholic POV, openly scandalous divorced, divorced/remarried, openly living together outside marriage, engaging in extra-marital sexual relations, invalidly Catholic married, openly using contraception, openly supporting abortion, etc… parishioners are all committing “sins” as well. Yet the bishop has not addressed any of them similarly with such extreme punitive measures are denying them a Catholic funeral if their pastor or he can’t confirm their repentance before death.
 
rock022 said:
CHAPTER II.

THOSE TO WHOM ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS MUST BE GRANTED OR DENIED

Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.

§2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.

§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.

Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

**3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
**
§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.
Click to expand...
This one is interesting. Who would be someone who’d cremated their body for reasons contrary to the Christian faith?
 
Padres1969 said:
This one is interesting. Who would be someone who’d cremated their body for reasons contrary to the Christian faith?
Click to expand...
Long ago - there were people who chose cremation to deny the Bodily Resurrection … it was a way to thumb their nose at the Church - it was saying “go ahead - try to Resurrect this”

Thats why the Church did not allow cremation - not that cremation itself was bad - it was the reason people chose to be cremated …

That is no longer the case which is why the Church allows cremation now - and only discourages its use
 
Two years ago, this same bishop issued directives for Catholic school families that required all sorts of nonsense to “save” their declining enrollments. (Among other things, non-Catholic parents were required to attend Sunday and Holy Day Mass while contributing 8% minimum of their annual income to the parish, in addition to the non-Catholic tuition rate.) Turned out to be another nail in the coffin lid for that diocese’s schools, from what I understand. I expect this to work out about as well.
 
The local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment is to be followed. Pretty clear.

Yes, it’s about the scandal.

If Rome has a problem with the judgment of this particular ordinary, as it appears Rome might, he will be called for his ad limina visit early and offered correction. Likewise, the ordinary has to prove that correction of those involved in the scandal was attempted by his pastoral action. Those documents reside in the ecclesiastic secret archives.

The manifestation of the conduct is in the exterior forum, specifically by a filed marriage license. Sins that occur in the interior forum are, and always have been, treated differently by canon law. Church trials are also available, a two-edged sword.
 
I still haven’t been able to find a full file of Bishop Paprocki’s guidelines. if anyone has it, I’d love to see it.

On first glance, it seems that the bishop is singling out those who are giving public scandal by being open and up front regarding their state-sanctioned homosexual marriage. This is very different from most of the examples that. Fr. martin gave, although I do agree with him on the point regarding those who have divorced their lawful and spouse and publicly and openly live with their civilly remarried spouse. that’s definitely analogous; the others aren’t.

The scandal given by those who have come into a homosexual marriage sanctioned by the state is a very grave scandal, as it equates this union with the bond that can only be truly received by people who marry the opposite sex. He doesn’t mention those who are in illicit sexual relationships, either gay or straight. Because if he did, then yea, you would have to deny anyone who fornicated a Christian funeral. Thankfully, this doesn’t appear to be what Bishop Paprocki is suggesting. When someone solemnizes their union as a “marriage”, we enter a whole new ball game. Marriage is a sacrament, and it’s being mocked by those of the same-sex who attempt to marry. A man fathering a child out of wedlock is not attempting marriage. Even those that cohabit are not attempting marriage. Those that are homosexual and seek state sanctioned marriage are attempting to get married. That attempt, however, is of course impossible and the public scandal makes a mockery out of the union that truly occurs between a man and woman in marriage.

As for cremation, this just came up recently. Check out this link for more info, Padres.
 
Padres1969 said:
The funerary guideline in particular is raising eyebrows and has already illicited a response from the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications consultant Father James Martin via his Facebook page.

facebook.com/FrJamesMartin
Click to expand...
With all due respect to Fr. Martin, I think Fr. Martin is creating a sort of a straw man argument, if you will. According to my understanding, Bishop Paprocki made these guidelines specifically about the pastoral care of same sex couples, so it wouldn’t be necessary to mention who else to ban from receiving a Catholic funeral.

As an analogy, consider a bishop in Arizona or a bishop in New Mexico or a bishop in any other border states writing guidelines on the pastoral care of Hispanic immigrants, and in the guidelines, the bishop writes that drug cartel leaders who appear very unrepentant must be denied a Catholic funeral. Would it make sense to criticize the guidelines by saying, “Well, what about members of Hells Angels? Shouldn’t they be denied a Catholic funeral too?” No, it wouldn’t make sense to mention Hells Angels, because the guidelines were specifically about the pastoral care of Hispanic immigrants, not on the pastoral care of motorcycle gang members.
 
YADA said:
The original Bishop mentioned the public scandal - but it cannot be a public scandal without the underlying sin - can it?

I **think the public scandal aspect is the person is saying - in a public way - What I am doing is not a sin [though the Church teaches that it is] and I do not need to change my actions - the Church needs to change their calling it a sin …
**
If one is living and married in a same sex relationship - openly … does that not give public scandal? -

Especially if one then seeks to be accepted - publicly to the Sacramental life of the Church?

Last Sunday at Mass - Father spoke during his homily about the need to seek our hearts and repent - Go to Confession before receiving the Body of Christ. That we are not to receive in a state of mortal sin - that is not healthy for us …

So are you saying that it is okay to live in open opposition [and without repentance] to what the Church teaches is morally sinful and still partake in the Sacramental life … where specifically the Eucharist is the reality and sign of our Common Faith and that would not be a cause of scandal and confusion - because that is a new idea to me :confused:
Click to expand...
I agree with your post(s) wholeheartedly especially the above that I highlighted. Just wait until someone in one of these irregular situations such as remarried without an annulment or married gay couple enroll their children in school and then sue the school that their Family Agreement discriminates and violated their rights.

It’s just around the corner I bet. I believe there are some with an agenda that enroll their kids in Catholic school. They want the Church to change to suit their needs. We are not to live in scandal and receive the sacraments.

Mary.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Interesting.

For hundreds of thousands of years, people have taken the ritual of burials and funerals very seriously, and considered them to be sacred rites that express honor to a person life, hope for their soul, and respect for their death.
To deny someone the funeral rite was one of the most egregious punishments one could give.

About 2000 years ago, Roman authorities had a practice that slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state who’d been crucified for criminal activity would also be *denied a proper burial *and left to die on the cross, their decomposing bodies eaten by animals–a most shameful and disgraceful way to die.

At that time, there was a Jewish preacher from Nazareth who caused a lot of “public scandal,” was found guilty of treason against the state, and was ordered to be crucified. He was given the chance to exonerate himself or “repent” beforehand, but he did not.

So, like the others criminals that day, he was to be crucified and denied a proper burial.

As the story goes (tho many debate this)…someone knew of this man’s goodness and convinced the man in charge–known to be brutal and unmerciful–to have compassion. And so, the good preacher from Nazareth was allowed to have a proper burial.

Had the man in charge not found compassion, this forum–and Christianity–may not exist today.

I hope that all the Catholic bishops and priests of the world find compassion in their hearts and not deny these people funerals.

.
Click to expand...
I really appreciate your words of finding compassion in their hearts. We have to remember though that Jesus was one of a kind and sinless. He forgave the thief on the cross after he said basically he deserved his fate but Christ had done nothing wrong He repented is the key thought to me. He realized he deserved to be crucified according to the law of the day. Thank God we are beyond crucifixion in this country as punishment for crime.

Jesus founded our Church today though and it through his teachings as recorded in the Bible and magisterium that has shed light on the issues that are being debated and tearing non Catholic Churches apart such as gay marriage.

Personally, I would hope that no one would be denied a Catholic funeral that wants one. This is because of reasons that do with sentiment.

However it begs the question to me as why a homosexual married couple that has lived in an openly sinful relationship that brings scandal to the Church would desire a Catholic funeral to begin with.

Any thoughts on that anyone or know anyone in that situation?

Mary.
 
I understand that a bishop is the chief liturgist for his diocese. However, given the world-wide phenomenon of same-sex “marriage” legislation, one wonders why Rome hadn’t articulated such a response on a more uniform basis. Alternatively, I wonder if certain Vatican heads will be shaking again – “There go the Americans again.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top