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

[Padres1969]

Yes, Fr. Martin’s comment does merit…attention…on several counts. First, making such a statement on a Facebook page is…ah, poor form. Is this really how we want debates about moral issues to be carried on?

Second, and more significantly, the argument is…how to say this without running afoul of the moderators?..beyond poor. Essentially his point is this: since the church has not enforced the funerary rules adequately in the past, she should not enforce them at all now. That is, it is better to get everything wrong than to get some of it right at the cost of appearing to discriminate against even those who are egregiously wrong.

Third, for someone who is a member of the Vatican apparatus and who’s words carry a bit of extra (and in this case apparently undeserved) weight, you really would expect a cogent argument. He seems rather unfamiliar with canon law, the relevant one being this:***Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following **must *****be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
*…3/ other **manifest ***sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
This isn’t all that complicated. The law doesn’t say they *may *be denied an ecclesiastical funeral, it says they *must *be. Fr. Martin is arguing for that law to simply be ignored. He then lists other sinners who he claims would have to be denied church funerals: those using birth control, others who are “not loving, not forgiving, not merciful”, and those who don’t follow the teachings of Jesus.

So, what aspect of any of those sinners’ actions that he feels ought to ban them from church funerals is manifest? Are we to ignore the requirement that the sin be manifest? Either that or Fr. Martin is simply unfamiliar with the law, which makes one wonder why he felt compelled to comment on the matter.

Given how…um…less than sterling…his comment was: yes, an…appropriate comment…is decidedly in order.

Ender

Except that it is so in that as has been mentioned, there are plenty of situations in which the Pastor may not be aware of repentance before death (nor the bishop), yet due to that they would be obligated to deny the faithful a funeral. And as you point out, in more than just situations dealing with same sex relationships/marriage.

It’s one of those canon laws that does seem hard to equitably enforce given that quite often a pastor is not aware if a congregant has been repentant or not of a manifest sin. Which is why no doubt, in practice, it sure doesn’t seem like funerary rights are denied in situations where there is even the slightest chance the deceased might have repented before death even without the pastor or bishop’s knowledge. I suspect that’s why this particular bishop felt the need to dust this rarely exercised law off and single out same sex couples where most of his peers seem to not be doing so.

 

[Ender]

Except that it is so in that as has been mentioned, there are plenty of situations in which the Pastor may not be aware of repentance before death (nor the bishop), yet due to that they would be obligated to deny the faithful a funeral. And as you point out, in more than just situations dealing with same sex relationships/marriage.

That may be your argument but it wasn’t Fr. Martin’s, and I was responding to his comments. I would assume that before someone was denied a Catholic funeral there would be some investigation and discussion among priests. I don’t see this as that great an obstacle.

It’s one of those canon laws that does seem hard to equitably enforce given that quite often a pastor is not aware if a congregant has been repentant or not of a manifest sin. Which is why no doubt, in practice, it sure doesn’t seem like funerary rights are denied in situations where there is even the slightest chance the deceased might have repented before death even without the pastor or bishop’s knowledge. I suspect that’s why this particular bishop felt the need to dust this rarely exercised law off and single out same sex couples where most of his peers seem to not be doing so.

That argument boils down to this: since the law is not applied equally to everybody, why should it be applied to anybody? That is an observation that suggests we ought to be doing more, not for giving up entirely and doing nothing at all.

Ender

 

[EnglishTeacher]

You hit one point I’d been bouncing around my head from the moment I heard of this bishop’s decree (and the subsequent Catechism section he’s basing it on). The Pastor and/or Bishop are not necessarily the ones who would know if a person was un-repentant to the end. This seems a case of not giving the deceased any kind of benefit of the doubt, and trying to take it out of God’s hands for the sake of preventing “scandal”, where in fact no scandal may exist other than the denying of the faithful their funerary rights.

“Scandal” as the Church uses the term has a weightier and different meaning than “scandal” in the colloquial sense. Scandal is defined by the Catechism as “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil” (see sections 2284-2287 of the Catechism for further commentary). It is sin because it can cause others who are weaker in the faith to stumble. For example, if I hold myself out as a faithful Catholic but live with my boyfriend outside of marriage, then I am committing the sin of scandal in addition to sin against the 6th commandment. I.e., besides being sinful in themselves, my actions could mislead others to think that this is something that is ok for Catholics to do.

Yes, we all sin. But there is a difference between 1) sinning and realizing that your actions are sinful and therefore repenting, and 2) sinning and denying that your actions are sinful because you think you know better than the Church.

 

[MaryT777]

Are there Catholics here that believe any baptized Catholic should be allowed a Catholic funeral and no one should be denied for any reason?

It seems as such. Many here have said it if gives comfort to the Family it should be done
and also say the Church has no clue who may have
1: given a death bed confession
2: repented in their final days of life or last breaths of life.

Mary.

 

[billy15]

I find it unfortunate that we’re 4 pages in to this thread, and no one posted a link to the actual decree issued by Bishop Paprocki. As is usual, it seems that the secular media and dissident Catholics havejumped the gun again and have focused on just one aspect of the bishop’s decree. Here’s the link:

Decree Regarding Same-Sex “Marriage” and Related Pastoral Issues

As I suspected, Fr. Martin’s analysis of the decree is mistaken as the bishop is specifically talking about those who have made an attempt to solemnize their union through state sanctioned marriage. He’s not talking about homosexuals in general, nor is he talking about fornication in general. There are six sections in this decree, and it’s only the fourth one that deals with funeral rites. Why the media, and New Ways Ministry decided to focus only on this is beyond me. But in any case, the entire thing has been sensationalized by new Ways Ministry and the like, as usual.

Keep in mind that Bishop Paprocki has, besides a master’s degree in theology and a civil law degree from Depaul, a further licentiate degree in theology and, even more, a licentiate and doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical GregoriaUniversity in Rome. In short, he knows what he’s talking about, especially when he cites Canon 1184 when dealing with the section on funeral rites.

Bishop Paprocki is simply doing his job as bishop. Of course the secular media and dissenting groups like New Way Ministry will be vocal about their disappointment. Canonist Ed Peters had an excellent point on that specific canon in regards to all this:

Paprocki knows, for example, that the CLSA New Commentary (2001) discussing Canon 1184 at p. 1412, understands one in “manifest sin” as one “publicly known to be living in a state of grave sin”. That’s a far cry from [editor at New Ways Ministry, Robert] Shine’s rhetorical jab, delivered as if it were the coup de grace to Paprocki’s position, “Who among us, including Bishop Paprocki, does not publicly sin at different moments?” Hardly anyone, I would venture, and so would Paprocki. But the law is not directed at those who, from time to time, commit sin, even a public sin; it is concerned about those who make an objectively sinful state their way of life.

I’d also like to quote the end of Bishop Paprocki’s decree, that was so conveniently left out of the other reports we’ve seen thus far, including being left out of Fr. Martin’s statement:

Finally, I remind all who exercise a ministry within the Church that while being clear and direct about what the Church teaches, our pastoral ministry must always be respectful, compassionate and sensitive to all our brothers and sisters in faith, as was the ministry of Christ Jesus, the Good Shepherd and our everlasting model for ministry./

The model for ministry is not found in the applications and ideas of New Ways Ministry or those that they support. The model is found in Christ Jesus, as it is applied by what Bishop Paprocki gives all in this decree.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have an aunt who is a pastor in an evangelical church. And wouldn’t you know it? Every single one of our family that has died has had a deathbed conversion in the days or hours before death. Every single one! And she makes sure we know about it at the funeral! I sure hope I outlive her!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Are there Catholics here that believe any baptized Catholic should be allowed a Catholic funeral and no one should be denied for any reason?

It seems as such. Many here have said it if gives comfort to the Family it should be done
and also say the Church has no clue who may have
1: given a death bed confession
2: repented in their final days of life or last breaths of life.

Mary.

Yes me although I don’t practice. But yes if it is the wish of someone or their Catholic family if the person has not made their last wishes known, I agree with what OraLabora said… “A Catholic, in good standing or not, should get a funeral. Let God sort it out at Judgement”. And the reason is simple. No one (on this earth at least) knows the heart or mind of someone at their moment of death. I also include comfort for the loved ones who mourn, some of whom might be practicing Catholics who are left behind. But you were already aware of that.

 

[JimG]

I still don’t understand why someone who does not accept Catholicism would want a Catholic burial. Are we talking about people who are members of a particular parish but reject Catholic teaching but want a Catholic funeral?

It would be like me asking for a Methodist burial when I’ve never been Methodist in my life.

 

[ctb95]

I find it unfortunate that we’re 4 pages in to this thread, and no one posted a link to the actual decree issued by Bishop Paprocki. As is usual, it seems that the secular media and dissident Catholics havejumped the gun again and have focused on just one aspect of the bishop’s decree. Here’s the link:

Decree Regarding Same-Sex “Marriage” and Related Pastoral Issues

As I suspected, Fr. Martin’s analysis of the decree is mistaken as the bishop is specifically talking about those who have made an attempt to solemnize their union through state sanctioned marriage. He’s not talking about homosexuals in general, nor is he talking about fornication in general. There are six sections in this decree, and it’s only the fourth one that deals with funeral rites. Why the media, and New Ways Ministry decided to focus only on this is beyond me. But in any case, the entire thing has been sensationalized by new Ways Ministry and the like, as usual.

Keep in mind that Bishop Paprocki has, besides a master’s degree in theology and a civil law degree from Depaul, a further licentiate degree in theology and, even more, a licentiate and doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical GregoriaUniversity in Rome. In short, he knows what he’s talking about, especially when he cites Canon 1184 when dealing with the section on funeral rites.

Bishop Paprocki is simply doing his job as bishop. Of course the secular media and dissenting groups like New Way Ministry will be vocal about their disappointment. Canonist Ed Peters had an excellent point on that specific canon in regards to all this:

I’d also like to quote the end of Bishop Paprocki’s decree, that was so conveniently left out of the other reports we’ve seen thus far, including being left out of Fr. Martin’s statement:

Finally, I remind all who exercise a ministry within the Church that while being clear and direct about what the Church teaches, our pastoral ministry must always be respectful, compassionate and sensitive to all our brothers and sisters in faith, as was the ministry of Christ Jesus, the Good Shepherd and our everlasting model for ministry./

Thank you; this was much needed!

 

[Sy_Noe]

I still don’t understand why someone who does not accept Catholicism would want a Catholic burial. Are we talking about people who are members of a particular parish but reject Catholic teaching but want a Catholic funeral?

It would be like me asking for a Methodist burial when I’ve never been Methodist in my life.

And I don’t understand what is so hard to understand about it. Besides the obvious that no one on this earth knows the spiritual status of one’s heart and soul at the moment of death, Daddygirl gave the reasons a Catholic friend of hers has. Additionally, others with a Catholic background whom the Church considers to be Catholic, may simply want a religious ceremony of some sort and afterall it is the Catholic Church itself that considers them Catholics. Or their families may wish for their loved one to have such a ceremony. Or someone may not be sure about Catholicism but also may not have completely rejected it. There may be any number of reasons. Speaking of Methodists, I do know of Episcopalian priests who will serve at funerals of non-Episcopalians. And being of service to those whom God created who are in need at such a time would seem to me to be part of serving Him. Is it really necessary to deny someone or their mourning loved ones this at the time of a death? Or to add to the heartache of those left behind?

 

[JimG]

And I don’t understand what is so hard to understand about it. Besides the obvious that no one on this earth knows the spiritual status of one’s heart and soul at the moment of death, Daddygirl gave the reasons a Catholic friend of hers has. Additionally, others with a Catholic background whom the Church considers to be Catholic, may simply want a religious ceremony of some sort and afterall it is the Catholic Church itself that considers them Catholics. Or their families may wish for their loved one to have such a ceremony. Or someone may not be sure about Catholicism but also may not have completely rejected it. There may be any number of reasons. Speaking of Methodists, I do know of Episcopalian priests who will serve at funerals of non-Episcopalians. And being of service to those whom God created who are in need at such a time would seem to me to be part of serving Him. Is it really necessary to deny someone or their mourning loved ones this at the time of a death? Or to add to the heartache of those left behind?

A friend of mine at my old parish asked her pastor to conduct a service for her husband who was killed in an auto accident. The priest was happy to oblige, but the service was held at the funeral home. He was not Catholic, nor baptized, so it was not a Catholic funeral.

As for those who have been baptized Catholic but do not belong to a local parish, I don’t know how it would work. Pastors are accustomed—and required—to provide funerals for their parishioners. If a perfect stranger approaches asking for a Catholic funeral for someone who is claimed to be Catholic, how would he proceed? Contact the parish which had conducted the Baptism to verify the Baptism, I suppose. And which parish out of many local parishes should be the one to conduct the funeral? Normally it would be the parish to which one belongs. There are a lot of questions here.

 

[Sy_Noe]

A friend of mine at my old parish asked her pastor to conduct a service for her husband who was killed in an auto accident. The priest was happy to oblige, but the service was held at the funeral home. He was not Catholic, nor baptized, so it was not a Catholic funeral.

As for those who have been baptized Catholic but do not belong to a local parish, I don’t know how it would work. Pastors are accustomed—and required—to provide funerals for their parishioners. If a perfect stranger approaches asking for a Catholic funeral for someone who is claimed to be Catholic, how would he proceed? Contact the parish which had conducted the Baptism to verify the Baptism, I suppose. And which parish out of many local parishes should be the one to conduct the funeral? Normally it would be the parish to which one belongs. There are a lot of questions here.

Well in the case of my mother, I only know that the priest from her territorial parish who did not make it on time to administer the Sacrament of Anointing and who did not know my mother nor me, offered to go to the funeral home which I thought was very nice. She had attended Mass and was a registered member of her parish before relocating and then we did together at times afterwards (she no longer drove so I took her) but not always at the same parish and she never did register at one after moving. After I informed him we were taking her body out of state where we had a Catholic service and burial there, he nevertheless said he and his brother priests at the parish would pray for her which I thought was very nice. Decades earlier, the family arranged a funeral Mass for my father who had never set forth inside a church of any kind in years. The generosity of the parish community which included a dinner for the family after the burial, actually was instrumental in my mother returning to regular Mass attendance. I’ve had a number of Catholic relatives, practicing as well as non whose funerals were Catholic. So this whole matter of denying a funeral is something I guess I simply can’t phathom nor relate to I suppose.

 

[Sojourner003]

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 …

Are you saying that if you had been granted use of the sacraments sooner that your soul would be between sickness and death?

 

[Sojourner003]

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.

.

That says it all. IMHO

 

[YADA]

Are you saying that if you had been granted use of the sacraments sooner that your soul would be between sickness and death?

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,k that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.* 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.**

 

[Sy_Noe]

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,k that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.* 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.**

Paul said that and also Jesus said in Jn 6:37, “Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.”

 

[Seamus_L]

In the 20 years since I returned to the Church, I’ve been amazed at the number of people who either don’t understand or don’t want to understand what a Public or Manifest Sinner is. On numerous occasions I’ve heard people make comments like “If that politician can be denied communion in his diocese, because of his pro-abortion, pro-homosexual voting record, then we should also deny communion to all the fornicators, contracepting couples, mastrubators, abusers of drugs and alcohol, racists, those who won’t help the poor, supporters of the death penalty, etc, etc, etc”.

 

[ctb95]

In the 20 years since I returned to the Church, I’ve been amazed at the number of people who either don’t understand or don’t want to understand what a Public or Manifest Sinner is. On numerous occasions I’ve heard people make comments like “If that politician can be denied communion in his diocese, because of his pro-abortion, pro-homosexual voting record, then we should also deny communion to all the fornicators, contracepting couples, mastrubators, abusers of drugs and alcohol, racists, those who won’t help the poor, supporters of the death penalty, etc, etc, etc”.

This is the same basic argument that Fr. Martin makes in his response to the Bishop of Springfield.

 

[Ender]

Paul said that and also Jesus said in Jn 6:37, “Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.”

I think the significant phrase here is the reference to those “who come(s) to me”. Are we to believe he really meant he would accept those who rejected him? If you’re going to cite Jn 6:37 perhaps you should also consider Mt 7:23 -*Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’
*But surely the judgment a person faces after his death is unaffected by whether or not he receives a funeral mass. His fate was determined by his actions during his life, not by the actions of others after his passing, so while God will surely sort it all out at the proper time we should show somewhat more concern for the living whose fate is not yet sealed. This is shown by a proper concern for scandal. If even those who publicly advertise their sinful lives are accorded an ecclesiastical funeral does this not suggest that the church doesn’t really consider the sin all that egregious?

Ender

 

[Jeanne_S]

I think the significant phrase here is the reference to those “who come(s) to me”. Are we to believe he really meant he would accept those who rejected him? If you’re going to cite Jn 6:37 perhaps you should also consider Mt 7:23 -*Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’
*But surely the judgment a person faces after his death is unaffected by whether or not he receives a funeral mass. His fate was determined by his actions during his life, not by the actions of others after his passing, so while God will surely sort it all out at the proper time we should show somewhat more concern for the living whose fate is not yet sealed. This is shown by a proper concern for scandal. If even those who publicly advertise their sinful lives are accorded an ecclesiastical funeral does this not suggest that the church doesn’t really consider the sin all that egregious?

Ender

Well said!