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

[abucs]

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.

I have not come across the experience you have described but it shows our experiences are not the sole basis of making policy. I would not be so sure in saying that your example does not exist because you are personally saying you know of such a situation. I also know of the situation I described so it is not hypothetical.

I would think that the example you have cited, if known to the bishop, would not be one covered in his directive. It would be an exception.

Again it is apples and oranges because in one case someone is alive to accept direction and offer repentance and on the other hand the other is not.

In your case the couple would have to notify the church beforehand if they wanted a Catholic burial. If they did live as siblings then I would expect them to take the church’s directives very seriously and to be in close contact with the church beforehand so it wouldn’t be a problem.

Perhaps you are wrong in what ‘this’ is telling you. Write to the bishop and give your example and see what the response is. Then you will know what the position of the bishop actually is instead of what ‘something’ is telling you’

 

[StudentMI]

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.

God bless you. This post is powerful.

 

[abucs]

From the bishop concerned.

“Speaking objectively,” says the bishop of Springfield, Illinois, “… all those who have sexual relations outside of valid marriage, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, should not receive Holy Communion unless they repent, go to confession and amend their lives. This includes the divorced and remarried without an annulment, as is well known from all the recent media attention on that issue.”

…

Father Martin gets a lot wrong in those remarks. Everyone is a sinner, but not everyone is living an immoral lifestyle. Since we are all sinners, we are all called to conversion and repentance. He misses the key phrase in the decree that ecclesiastical funeral rites are to be denied to persons in same-sex “marriages” “unless they have given some signs of repentance before their death.” This is a direct quote from canon 1184 of the Code of Canon Law, which is intended as a call to repentance.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.

…

Someone entering into a same-sex “marriage” can receive the sacraments and be given ecclesiastical funeral rites if they repent and renounce their “marriage.”

 

[Peter_J]

Nice to see so many people taking the time to post on this, but is it possible that this discussion is a bit premature? What I mean is, at this point we know that Bishop Paprocki includes same-sex-married persons in the list of “manifest sinners” who should be denied funerals (unless they repented thereof), but do we know who else he includes in that list? If not perhaps we should hold off a bit on commentating.

 

[Peter_J]

My territorial parish would fit in pretty well with CAF.

I too have attended a parish that I found to be very CAF-like. Not that anyone asked me.

 

[JimG]

Father Z references comments from canonist Edward Peters concerning Bishop Paprocki.

Canonist Ed Peters destroys a clueless critic of Bp. Paprocki

 

[Ubenedictus]

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.

my diocese has a similar restriction for others who died without making a effort to regularize their situation, marrying outside the church, remarriage etc get the same treatment. We had a family friend who married outside the church and didn’t covalidate, her kids were baptized by our pastor… Who always welcome them well, but at her death he was present through out the funeral but only performed the rites by the grave… Citing canon law and bishop’s directive .

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

The Church, quite simply, does not require this of a sinner, and it is therefore moot to this discussion.

So is your opinion that any Catholic in any standing be allowed a Catholic funeral, since the Church doesn’t teach that. The entire topic is in fact about that.

 

[Padres1969]

my diocese has a similar restriction for others who died without making a effort to regularize their situation, marrying outside the church, remarriage etc get the same treatment. We had a family friend who married outside the church and didn’t covalidate, her kids were baptized by our pastor… Who always welcome them well, but at her death he was present through out the funeral but only performed the rites by the grave… Citing canon law and bishop’s directive .

Who officiated her funeral then if not her pastor?

 

[OraLabora]

So is your opinion that any Catholic in any standing be allowed a Catholic funeral, since the Church doesn’t teach that. The entire topic is in fact about that.

I repeat, the Church has no requirement for public repentance. She requires only sacramental confession wirth a firm purpose of amendment and absolution, a private act, protected by the seal of the confessional.

Any suggestion otherwise is not Church teaching, and hence, irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem to have taken my reply completely out of context.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

I repeat, the Church has no requirement for public repentance. She requires only sacramental confession wirth a firm purpose of amendment and absolution, a private act, protected by the seal of the confessional.

Any suggestion otherwise is not Church teaching, and hence, irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem to have taken my reply completely out of context.

But you said a Catholic in any standing, but have now clarified that a private confession is needed, which would rule out a Catholic of any standing. That’s the point.

 

[OraLabora]

But you said a Catholic in any standing, but have now clarified that a private confession is needed, which would rule out a Catholic of any standing. That’s the point.

You’re confusing two issues here. One is the Church’s requirement for repentance. The other is that the private nature of repentance makes it difficult to know whether or not the deceased did in fact repent, either on the deathbed or in an other parish/diocese.

Repentance is required, but not able to be proved in certain circumstances.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Who officiated her funeral then if not her pastor?

I guess I caused confusion by the term “funeral”, I do not mean a Catholic mass. Her husband was a pastor for a small church, he prayed and gathered people to remember her life, this was after he was informed his wife won’t be getting the usual funeral mass.

The parish priest was around through most of it, but only said the prayers by the graveside.

 

[Padres1969]

Guess not all Bishops see it the same way. In response to Bishop Paprocki’s very public proclaimation of the denial of funeral rights to those in LGBT relationships, Bishop Patrick McGrath of San Jose issued the following to the clergy in his charge:

Recent news reports of policies and practices related to members of the LGBT community in other dioceses can be confusing.

I take this opportunity to assure you that the pastoral response in the Diocese of San Jose remains just that: compassionate and pastoral. We will not refuse sacraments or Christian Burial to anyone who requests them in good faith.

Finally, let us remember and be guided by the words of Pope Francis: “The Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

I leave this here without comment other than to say the complete difference in pastoral response is intriguing…

 

[Peter_J]

Guess not all Bishops see it the same way.

I think most people guessed that when they saw the amount of media coverage that Bishop Paprocky received.

 

[polki]

When the Church has been relatively silent about heterosexual indiscretions over the last 40+ years, and is also on the other side of the abuse scandals, it is not surprising that the door has been opened for people to make the argument that gays are being singled out for their sins and should be accepted for who they are.

This issue gets solved only by all the Church leaders speaking consistently about the harsh Truth about all sin. It does not get solved by acceptance of sinful lifestyles. Yes we are all sinners and need to be told so; to repent and live the gospel, which includes being told the Truth of the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

When the Church has been relatively silent about heterosexual indiscretions over the last 40+ years

That would not be the Catholic Church.

On the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops alone there is:

USCCB, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination (2006)
USCCB Ministerio a las personas con inclinacion homosexual (2006)
USCCB Committee on Marriage and Family, Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message To Parents Of Homosexual Children And Suggestions For Pastoral Ministers (1997) | En Español | Order
Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Chastity and homosexuality,” nos. 2357-2359
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. . . (1986)

Many more documents can be read on the Vatican’s website, see gsearch.vatican.va/search?client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entsp=a__policy_documenti&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&filter=0&q=homosexual

Edit: I notice that your post said “relatively”. Do you mean relative to the SSPX?

 

[Padres1969]

That would not be the Catholic Church.

On the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops alone there is:

USCCB, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination (2006)
USCCB Ministerio a las personas con inclinacion homosexual (2006)
USCCB Committee on Marriage and Family, Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message To Parents Of Homosexual Children And Suggestions For Pastoral Ministers (1997) | En Español | Order
Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Chastity and homosexuality,” nos. 2357-2359
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. . . (1986)

Many more documents can be read on the Vatican’s website, see gsearch.vatican.va/search?client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entsp=a__policy_documenti&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&filter=0&q=homosexual

Edit: I notice that your post said “relatively”. Do you mean relative to the SSPX?

Um, none of those address Heterosexual transgressions as the previous poster mentioned…

 

[Peter_J]

That would not be the Catholic Church.

On the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops alone there is:

USCCB, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination (2006)
USCCB Ministerio a las personas con inclinacion homosexual (2006)
USCCB Committee on Marriage and Family, Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message To Parents Of Homosexual Children And Suggestions For Pastoral Ministers (1997) | En Español | Order
Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Chastity and homosexuality,” nos. 2357-2359
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. . . (1986)

Many more documents can be read on the Vatican’s website, see gsearch.vatican.va/search?client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entsp=a__policy_documenti&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&filter=0&q=homosexual

Edit: I notice that your post said “relatively”. Do you mean relative to the SSPX?

Sorry polki, I see now that I didn’t read your post carefully enough (emphasis added):

When the Church has been relatively silent about heterosexual indiscretions over the last 40+ years

 

[Peter_J]

Um, none of those address Heterosexual transgressions as the previous poster mentioned…

I guess I’ve spent a little too much time on-forum over the years: it seems to have become the norm, in my mind, to expect any Catholic layperson I meet to think that the Church has gone liberal on homosexuality.