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

[Wedge_Antilles]

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.

For pete’s sake, the answer is the same EVERY time this notion is brought up.

No other group laments feeling ostracized from the Church. Not many other group of sinners forms ministries for their members. The movement to welcome those who struggle with homosexuality is very large.

The rest of us sinners have heard the message that applies to us and don’t try to have the Church make us feel more welcome. There aren’t masses held to welcome men who cheat on their wives, or women who love pornography, at men who embezzle.

The Church anecdotally have been almost completely silent on specific sins for decades in your average Church. Do you often hear homilies decrying homosexual relations? I hear them as often as I do homilies about abortion.

The Church wasn’t the one who started emphasizing homosexual relations in mainstream society. Don’t blame her for responding to secular or irreligious forces.

I expect she’d do the same if there was a nationwide movement to legitimize the use of pornography between couples and their mistresses, or even child porn. But there is simply no major attack on the Church in a unified manner on those fronts.

 

[Peter_J]

For pete’s sake, the answer is the same EVERY time this notion is brought up.

Thank you for that. I was unsure whether I should read more of your post(s), but I’d say that settles it.

 

[edwest2]

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?

May I add the encyclical Humanae Vitae? Pope Paul VI warned what would happen if we did not heed his words. Here was the reaction in 1968:

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

The Church was well aware that The Pill and the Sexual Revolution were both being promoted heavily, and reiterated constant Church teaching and issued a warning.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Having watched the gay rights movement develop as it happened, it has to be kept in mind that a media that would not play certain songs or show certain movies or even allow certain words to be said, gradually, for whatever reason, began to normalize immoral sexuality and promote deviant sexual behavior starting in 1970. All heterosexual sins never stopped being sins. In the 1970s and 80’s I worked with LGBT people. We all got along. Yes, there was a coordinated attack against the Church, sexual morality and even the unborn. The family and the true nature of sex had to be destroyed.

1966 National Organization for Women. See what they support by going to now.org

1967 Time magazine cover story promoting The Pill. “Contraception: Freedom from Fear.” Fear of what? Babies.
content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html

1968 The Sexual Revolution. Sex with anybody was OK according to a group of strangers.

1970s Adult Bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars open everywhere. The Church asked for this? A few years earlier, the worst you could legally do was buy Playboy or “girlie magazines” literally sold under the counter. Yes, I walked in. Gynecological sex, and a small section with gay sex magazines. This cost millions but appeared out of nowhere. Of course we complained but their high-priced lawyers told us religious nuts that they had the First Amendment right to do all this.

Gloria Steinem co-founds Ms. Magazine - a propaganda publication to go along with the Women’s Liberation Movement. We were lied to then by sexual deviants, and those who wanted to reshape society to their image and likeness or at least, keep the poison flowing until enough people succumbed to the poison. It took 40 years. The hospital I worked at began performing “sexual reassignment surgery” and one of our employees transitioned. No protests. No outcry. Private meant private.

Today? No more. CNN allowed an out athlete to tell everyone to “stop being homophobic.” That kind of broad brush assumption was not news - it was propaganda.

Ed

 

[Peter_J]

Good post.

I remember a dozen or so years ago, looking back on what had happened with Lawrence et al … and realizing that conservatives had found ourselves in a position where we were expected to defend the position that the “constitutional right to privacy” did exist but applied only to straight couples – the very position that liberals had carved out a few decades earlier! (Or so it seemed to me, I didn’t live through the 60s.)

May I add the encyclical Humanae Vitae? Pope Paul VI warned what would happen if we did not heed his words. Here was the reaction in 1968:

Indeed, that’s the sort of example I should have been giving. (I misread polki’s post, thinking “homosexual” instead of “heterosexual”.)

Whatever this or that individual Catholic may say, what the Church says is (as another poster put it) an equal opportunity call to chastity.

 

[polki]

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

No, I was trying to express (which probably came out poorly) that the message of chastity (across the board) is not often talked about at Sunday mass to the average Sunday mass-goer. Even though the teaching of the Church may be consistent, if it is not spoken of, then who will (especially young) people get more influenced by? Church encyclicals or secular sources?

 

[polki]

For pete’s sake, the answer is the same EVERY time this notion is brought up.

The Church anecdotally have been almost completely silent on specific sins for decades in your average Church. Do you often hear homilies decrying homosexual relations? I hear them as often as I do homilies about abortion.

Yes this is what I was trying to express. By priests, bishops, etc. not speaking out about chastity across the board, I can at least UNDERSTAND why the homosexual community can make some of the arguments that they do. I did not say I agree with promoting a subcultural LBGT community within the Church, since the basis of that lifestyle is considered a mortal sin in the Church.

 

[St_Francis]

Good post.

I remember a dozen or so years ago, looking back on what had happened with Lawrence et al … and realizing that conservatives had found ourselves in a position where we were expected to defend the position that the “constitutional right to privacy” did exist but applied only to straight couples – the very position that liberals had carved out a few decades earlier! (Or so it seemed to me, I didn’t live through the 60s.)

Indeed, that’s the sort of example I should have been giving. (I misread polki’s post, thinking “homosexual” instead of “heterosexual”.)

Whatever this or that individual Catholic may say, what the Church says is (as another poster put it) an equal opportunity call to chastity.

Yes this is what I was trying to express. By priests, bishops, etc. not speaking out about chastity across the board, I can at least UNDERSTAND why the homosexual community can make some of the arguments that they do. I did not say I agree with promoting a subcultural LBGT community within the Church, since the basis of that lifestyle is considered a mortal sin in the Church.

I agree. When the idea of SSM appeared, it seemed like so many, non-Catholics as well, were all stunned and saud it would destroy marriage, etc.

But it seemed that marriage was already in decay, and that jeterosexuals, by their acceptance of artificial birth control and no-fault divorce, had started that process long before the idea of SSM.

 

[St_Francis]

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:

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

Bishop McGrath says Bishop Paprocki’s statements are “confusing.” What about McGrath’s? What does presenting oneself “in good faith” mean? What are the criteria? How does he get to change the perennial teaching of the Church and the words of inspired Scripture?

Bishop P seems to have said (I haven’t found his text) that those in SS marriages, like other manifest sinners, will be denied a Catholic funeral. That seems clear and unambiguous. We have a well-established understanding of the criteria for this.

Of course, when members of the hierarchy violate or disregard those rules, it gives rise to confusion. Why should Kennedy get a big ol’ Catholic funeral and Joe and Moe be denied?

 

[Peter_J]

I agree. When the idea of SSM appeared, it seemed like so many, non-Catholics as well, were all stunned and saud it would destroy marriage, etc.

But it seemed that marriage was already in decay, and that jeterosexuals, by their acceptance of artificial birth control and no-fault divorce, had started that process long before the idea of SSM.

Amid the Wreckage of the Christian Right

 

[pnewton]

What about McGrath’s? What does presenting oneself “in good faith” mean? What are the criteria? How does he get to change the perennial teaching of the Church and the words of inspired Scripture?

Well, we could use the “inspired Scripture” to interpret this phrase.
1 Corinthians 11:28 (NIV) “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.”

As to what is the “perennial teaching of the Church,” that is kind of the question at hand, is it not? I know I would hate to be a bishop in this day and age. How far does one go in teaching what the Church teaches about homosexuality, while at the same time not singling it out among other sins just as serious?

 

[Ender]

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.

Given the bishops’ reluctance to publicly confront Catholics who publicly act in ways contrary to church doctrines, it is not likely that they would ever demand an act of public repentance, but it does seem as though they should.*23. The priest must take great pains to decide in which instances absolution should be given, denied, or deferred, lest he absolve such as are indisposed for this benefit–persons, for example, who give no indication of contrition, who refuse to put an end to hatred and enmity, to make restitution when they are able, to give up an approximate occasion of sin, or in any other way refuse to forsake their sins and amend their life. **To this class belong also persons who have given public scandal, unless they make public satisfaction and remove the scandal. ***(Sancta Missa, Rituale Romanum, 1964)
Ender

 

[St_Francis]

Well, we could use the “inspired Scripture” to interpret this phrase.
1 Corinthians 11:28 (NIV) “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.”

Is that his idea of good faith, or your idea of what he might mean?

As to what is the “perennial teaching of the Church,” that is kind of the question at hand, is it not? I know I would hate to be a bishop in this day and age. How far does one go in teaching what the Church teaches about homosexuality, while at the same time not singling it out among other sins just as serious?

Well, they could start by *teaching what the Church teaches. *It’s not enough to “publically model” chastity, priests and bishops should be *preaching *chastity.

When our new priest came in, he preached frequently about Confession, and also increased the regular times for Confession. Now we have really long lines at Confession. Amazing what some teaching will do!

He was also very clear to the confirmands that they were now responsible for their spiritual lives, they can no longer depend on their parents to remind them, to bring them, to keep them out of sin, to teach them.

How can we teach homosexual activity is wrong without singling it out? We can and we can’t. On the one hand, we simply discuss the wrongness of sexual sins, sexual temptations, and how to fight and win against those temptations. We make sure those learning are clear as to what constitutes a sexual sin and we can place homosexual activity among those sins so that it becomes one of the sexual sins and not Some Special Weird Sin.

On an individual level, however, it seems that at least some with SSA may need specific help to meet the challenges they will face, because some of those challenges will be different. The problem with trying “to avoid singlng something out” is that if the thing actually *is different, *then it has to be singled out lest the issues which are different be un–dealt with. But this does not need to be done in a mixed- group setting; it can be done individually or in a group of like people.

 

[St_Francis]

Amid the Wreckage of the Christian Right

Wow, that was a good article! I also really learned from hos digression into the acts which countered the Soviets, very interesting how he saw and explained that!

“Spoiler alert!”

At first, I thought the picture was of some trash on the side of the road. The picture was small on my device so I couldn’t catch the details. That was very effective.

 

[edwest2]

I agree. When the idea of SSM appeared, it seemed like so many, non-Catholics as well, were all stunned and saud it would destroy marriage, etc.

But it seemed that marriage was already in decay, and that jeterosexuals, by their acceptance of artificial birth control and no-fault divorce, had started that process long before the idea of SSM.

That’s not supported by anything. The plan was designed to destroy these things through cultural manipulation. The poisoning of the Body of Christ in the West meant the straights had to succumb to each stage of the process. Then the gays started to dump privacy and the process is being repeated - again.

What people don’t get is that gay marriage is not some kind of answer or better than straight, or equal to, straight marriage. Because right after SSM was heavily promoted by a compliant media, the “fight” for gay divorce had to happen and it’s happening, along with child custody issues.

The Devil… I mean: Blame it on the Straights? Straight marriage in decay connects to this how?

By the way, Catholics are still stunned.

Ed

 

[Padres1969]

Bishop McGrath says Bishop Paprocki’s statements are “confusing.” What about McGrath’s? What does presenting oneself “in good faith” mean? What are the criteria? How does he get to change the perennial teaching of the Church and the words of inspired Scripture?

Bishop P seems to have said (I haven’t found his text) that those in SS marriages, like other manifest sinners, will be denied a Catholic funeral. That seems clear and unambiguous. We have a well-established understanding of the criteria for this.

Of course, when members of the hierarchy violate or disregard those rules, it gives rise to confusion. Why should Kennedy get a big ol’ Catholic funeral and Joe and Moe be denied?

I would imagine it’s the same standard as someone who presents themselves for communion. If they’re presenting themselves, it’s presumed they’re worthy to receive. If not that’s between them and God.

 

[pnewton]

How can we teach homosexual activity is wrong without singling it out? We can and we can’t. On the one hand, we simply discuss the wrongness of sexual sins, sexual temptations, and how to fight and win against those temptations. We make sure those learning are clear as to what constitutes a sexual sin and we can place homosexual activity among those sins so that it becomes one of the sexual sins and not Some Special Weird Sin.

Exactly. That is what I meant. Teach about it in the larger context of chastity, and teach that in the larger context of sin.

Is that his idea of good faith, or your idea of what he might mean?

You mention Scripture and that is the only one I can think of that addresses the issue. As to what the Bishop meant, I would rather think the good faith is on the part of the priest assuming that those who present themselves for communion are not in a state of mortal sin. After all one confession is all it takes.

I know this does not address the issue of scandal. I am only speculating about what was meant.

 

[Ender]

I would imagine it’s the same standard as someone who presents themselves for communion. If they’re presenting themselves, it’s presumed they’re worthy to receive. If not that’s between them and God.

It is very much the same standard as for communion, and just as unrepentant, public sinners are to be denied communion (Canon 915), so are they to be denied an ecclesiastical funeral (Canon 1184).

Ender

 

[Padres1969]

It is very much the same standard as for communion, and** just as unrepentant, public sinners are to be denied communion** (Canon 915), so are they to be denied an ecclesiastical funeral (Canon 1184).

Ender

And yet they’re not typically.

 

[St_Francis]

That’s not supported by anything. The plan was designed to destroy these things through cultural manipulation. The poisoning of the Body of Christ in the West meant the straights had to succumb to each stage of the process. Then the gays started to dump privacy and the process is being repeated - again.

What people don’t get is that gay marriage is not some kind of answer or better than straight, or equal to, straight marriage. Because right after SSM was heavily promoted by a compliant media, the “fight” for gay divorce had to happen and it’s happening, along with child custody issues.

The Devil… I mean: Blame it on the Straights? Straight marriage in decay connects to this how?

First, by accepting abc, which leads to a sex-as-leisure activity rather than a sacramental re-commitment, straights destroyed the boundaries of marriage. If you have a fairly reliable form of abc, then you don’t have to worry about having sex outside of marriage.

Second, no-fault divorce destroyed the entire idea of marriage as some sort of contract. Marriage became the only contract with no penalties for the person who withdraws from the contract.

So what was left to destroy by the time SSM was brought up? What argument could be brought against SSM?

By the way, Catholics are still stunned.

I was not surprised…