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.
pnewton said:
I think he believes himself a priest. He also thought his argument, not his person, was sound. But hey, ad hominem away.
Click to expand...
My mistake, I thought in the western church bishops had more authority than priests.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
My mistake, I thought in the western church bishops had more authority than priests.
Click to expand...
You asked who he thought he was, not what authority he had. Likewise, you posted your opinion without having any authority over Father Martin. I answered your question, not your attitude. Father Martin thinks he is a priest because he is a priest.

This should be simple.
 
pnewton said:
You asked who he thought he was, not what authority he had. Likewise, you posted your opinion without having any authority over Father Martin. I answered your question, not your attitude. Father Martin thinks he is a priest because he is a priest.

This should be simple.
Click to expand...
I didn’t ask “who he thought he was”, I asked what place a priest has to publicly criticize a bishop on a matter of doctrine. It helps to be accurate when summarizing someone else’s posts.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I didn’t ask “who he thought he was”, I asked what place a priest has to publicly criticize a bishop on a matter of doctrine. It helps to be accurate when summarizing someone else’s posts.
Click to expand...
Then for greater accuracy I will slightly modify the answer to say more simply that Fr. Martin is a priest.

Did you ask your self who you are to criticize a priest? I can answer that as well. You are a poster here.

If your point is that he had no right to criticize a bishop, then how do you justify your own criticism of him?
 
EIF5A said:
(bold added)

So…in your ideal world, the Church would allow gay marriage?
Click to expand...
I don’t see this world as ideal. But if I placed total faith in Catholic teaching authority, no. I would obviously be practicing the faith.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I think you misunderstood and partly because of the word used. Because whether God’s mercy and forgiveness has already been bestowed upon the soul by the time we are talking about and whether the soul was dammed or saved into eternal life or in the Catholic belief, in a state of purgatory, is something we don’t know. Or at least I know it is above my paygrade. And you seem remained focused on the living and their sins. I am talking about compassion on earth for the dead and those left behind to mourn. And God, not man, making judgment at that point. But I see as another poster said, that this back and forth gets us nowhere.
Click to expand...
Your opinion on the matter differs from that of the church. On the other hand, it seems in accord with any number of her bishops. It is unsurprising that a lot of individuals disagree with what the church teaches, but it is certainly disappointing when bishops give the impression they are among that group as well.

Ende
 
Sy_Noe said:
granted my Catholic experience has been limited in the more recent years mostly nowadays to places such as CAF and from what I observe away from being within an actual parish setting.
Click to expand...
I hope that you know that CAF is FAR FAR different than the typical Catholic experience you will find in your average parish.

CAF attracts some strange birds.
 
ringil said:
**I hope that you know that CAF is FAR FAR different than the typical Catholic experience you will find in your average parish.
**
CAF attracts some strange birds.
Click to expand...
I will attest that this is true. That said, CAF is also IMO tends to skew closer to actual Catholic teaching then you’ll find in the average parish. Just my two cents.
 
pnewton said:
Then for greater accuracy I will slightly modify the answer to say more simply that Fr. Martin is a priest.

Did you ask your self who you are to criticize a priest? I can answer that as well. You are a poster here.

If your point is that he had no right to criticize a bishop, then how do you justify your own criticism of him?
Click to expand...
I guess this is my fault for not being clearer originally. My main concern is that it is the local bishop who has authority over and is responsible for his diocese, not some priest buried somewhere in the Vatican. Therefore it is inappropriate for said priest to pontificate to said bishop about how the bishop should exercise his pastoral responsibilities. If anyone can pontificate on such matters to the bishop, it would be the Pontiff (see what I did there?). As to who am I to criticize the priest, to quote an obscure saying of Captain Kirk, “who do I have to be?” As you say, I’m a poster here. I’m a fellow Christian, but not under Fr. Martin’s authority, nor even under the Bishop of Rome’s authority, although I have great respect for him. So you can take my opinion, as one who has read and prayed much on matters ecclesial, for whatever you want.
 
ringil said:
I hope that you know that CAF is FAR FAR different than the typical Catholic experience you will find in your average parish.

CAF attracts some strange birds.
Click to expand...
Padres1969 said:
I will attest that this is true. That said, CAF is also IMO tends to skew closer to actual Catholic teaching then you’ll find in the average parish. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
My territorial parish would fit in pretty well with CAF. The last one I attended maybe less so. But one of its priests left the country since I was last there.
 
pnewton said:
I know of no one that lives in accordance with Church teaching in all things. Such a one would be perfect and sinless. Do you gossip? Do you help the poor, sick, the stranger? Is your language always pure? Do you love others as much as yourself?

We must not focus on the sin one does when understanding this decree. It is not about the sin one commits, but about some public act that goes beyond just the sin, some act that would cause a grave scandal.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree and I think the good father should have understood that. I do not criticise him for having differing opinions to the bishop, but I think to change the subject from grave ‘scandal without repentance’ to ‘sin’ is, at best, misunderstanding the basis of the bishop’s directive.
 
The word “scandal” keeps getting tossed around.

I am not sure how a gay couple who is married is any more scandalous than a couple remarried w/o benefit of annulment or the couple who has 3 children in their wedding party for their “big church wedding”, or the couple who wants their child Baptized because Grandma wants it but really does not believe in anything that the Church teaches.

Or what about the person who openly disregards Chruch teaching about birth control, or the Real Presence, or the person who says that teh Church’s “man-made” rules are ridiculous and that Jesus never intended this?

There are so many more things, at least in my mind, that bring a much greater scandal to the Church than allowing a member of a gay couple to have a funeral.🤷
 
Oneofthewomen said:
The word “scandal” keeps getting tossed around.

I am not sure how a gay couple who is married is any more scandalous than a couple remarried w/o benefit of annulment or the couple who has 3 children in their wedding party for their “big church wedding”, or the couple who wants their child Baptized because Grandma wants it but really does not believe in anything that the Church teaches.

Or what about the person who openly disregards Chruch teaching about birth control, or the Real Presence, or the person who says that teh Church’s “man-made” rules are ridiculous and that Jesus never intended this?

There are so many more things, at least in my mind, that bring a much greater scandal to the Church than allowing a member of a gay couple to have a funeral.🤷
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should have a word with the Bishop then and he might expand his list, although your list is a little apples and oranges like the good father’s.

You’ve got to factor in repentance and publicly challenging the churches position. The word scandal is not being tossed about. It is well defined and each Bishop has a duty to ensure scandal is not brought to the Church.

You may disagree with the bishop on what brings ‘scandal’ but the word is not being ‘tossed’ around and it is duty of the bishop to negate this.

The church has been far too wishy washy over the last few decades and it has paid for it dearly.
 
abucs said:
Perhaps you should have a word with the Bishop then and he might expand his list, although your list is a little apples and oranges like the good father’s.

You’ve got to factor in repentance and publicly challenging the churches position. The word scandal is not being tossed about. It is well defined and each Bishop has a duty to ensure scandal is not brought to the Church.

You may disagree with the bishop on what brings ‘scandal’ but the word is not being ‘tossed’ around and it is duty of the bishop to negate this.

The church has been far too wishy washy over the last few decades and it has paid for it dearly.
Click to expand...
I am factoring in repentence and public challenges.
I have heard, in parish council meetings, Catechist meetings and in pre-Cana training, from Catholics, either employed by or volunteering for the Church, say that ABC is OK, that not getting an annulment is not the end of the world, so long as the people love each other, that Baptism is just something “we do” and that the whole idea of “Real Presence” is creepy. Is this the “wishy-washy” of which you speak?

How about the fact that so many Catholic weddings take place after the couple has lived together for years, and in many cases have children. Why is this not scandal?

I don’t understand why this particular Bishop feels that this is the hill to die on.
We have so many problems harming our Church, that are casuing REAL SCANDAL. I don’t think denying someone a funeral is going to help anyone to see things Bishop’s way.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
I am factoring in repentence and public challenges.
I have heard, in parish council meetings, Catechist meetings and in pre-Cana training, from Catholics, either employed by or volunteering for the Church, say that ABC is OK, that not getting an annulment is not the end of the world, so long as the people love each other, that Baptism is just something “we do” and that the whole idea of “Real Presence” is creepy. Is this the “wishy-washy” of which you speak?

How about the fact that so many Catholic weddings take place after the couple has lived together for years, and in many cases have children. Why is this not scandal?

I don’t understand why this particular Bishop feels that this is the hill to die on.
We have so many problems harming our Church, that are casuing REAL SCANDAL. I don’t think denying someone a funeral is going to help anyone to see things Bishop’s way.
Click to expand...
No it is not the wishy washy I am talking about. You did not mention repentance and defiance of the church in your original post.

To give two different examples :

If a couple live together before marriage do not care a toss for the church or its teachings and then one day want a Catholic marriage because of superficial reasons and showing no repentance or understanding of the church and its teachings then it would be extremely wishy washy for the priest to accept that.

On the other hand if the couple meet with the priest, accept the teachings, agree to live apart for a period of time, show devotion to the church etc then this is an entirely different situation. That is, they have shown repentance and a willingness to be faithful children of the church.

In the example of someone living in a same sex relationship, putting themselves outside of the church who then dies then obviously the time has passed to change heart and show any degree of repentance.

Apples and oranges,

The bishop will not die on that figurative hill and hopefully he will inspire other bishops to take a stand like himself, whether it be same sex marriage or any other unrepentant sin in clear and open defance of the church…
 
abucs said:
No it is not the wishy washy I am talking about. You did not mention repentance and defiance of the church in your original post.

To give two different examples :

If a couple live together before marriage do not care a toss for the church or its teachings and then one day want a Catholic marriage because of superficial reasons and showing no repentance or understanding of the church and its teachings then it would be extremely wishy washy for the priest to accept that.

On the other hand if the couple meet with the priest, accept the teachings, agree to live apart for a period of time, show devotion to the church etc then this is an entirely different situation. That is, they have shown repentance and a willingness to be faithful children of the church.

In the example of someone living in a same sex relationship, putting themselves outside of the church who then dies then obviously the time has passed to change heart and show any degree of repentance.

Apples and oranges,

The bishop will not die on that figurative hill and hopefully he will inspire other bishops to take a stand like himself, whether it be same sex marriage or any other unrepentant sin in clear and open defance of the church…
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t agree that they are apples & oranges.
In my experience, your hypothetical couple doesn’t exsist. Most couples that I know just told the priest what they thought he wanted to hear. Not one couple I know stopped living together, or sharing a bed, to get married in the Church, and then most of them don’t set foot in Church again until it’s time to have the baby Baptized.

I do know a gay couple though, who was married by the state, who did so because there was a major illness and it was the quickest, easiest way to make sure that everything would be OK for the surviving member of the couple. They had been together for many years, and this ensured that their home, business, and assets were not tied up in probate when the time came. They were not sharing a bed or even a room. They were friends and companions, who loved and cared for each other. Why should this person be considered living in manifest sin and denied a funeral, yet most people would not think twice to give a funeral to someone who denied the faith in other matters.

All this tells me is that this particular Bishop is making being “gay” more sinful than many other behaviors that also cause scandal. I would be more impressed if they (the Bishops) would fight those things, instead of cherry-picking doctrine to enforce that pertains to only a small sub-set of Catholics.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
The word “scandal” keeps getting tossed around.

I am not sure how a gay couple who is married is any more scandalous than a couple remarried w/o benefit of annulment or the couple who has 3 children in their wedding party for their “big church wedding”, or the couple who wants their child Baptized because Grandma wants it but really does not believe in anything that the Church teaches.

Or what about the person who openly disregards Chruch teaching about birth control, or the Real Presence, or the person who says that teh Church’s “man-made” rules are ridiculous and that Jesus never intended this?

There are so many more things, at least in my mind, that bring a much greater scandal to the Church than allowing a member of a gay couple to have a funeral.🤷
Click to expand...
I see your point. But some things maybe just get talked about in Catholic circles more than others.
 
There is a NEW interview with Bishop Paprocki:

catholicworldreport.com/2017/06/28/bishop-paprocki-responds-to-controversy-criticisms-over-decree-on-same-sex-marriage/

Here is an excerpt
Bishop Paprocki: Gay activists have harassed my staff and me with obscene telephone calls, e-mail messages and letters using foul language and profanity, supposedly in the name of love and tolerance. I am sorry that people around me have been subjected to such hateful and malicious language.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top