Catholic conservatism on the rise as priest refuses funeral for 'sinner'

[estesbob]

Seems this thread has gone far astray. Now we are discussing math-In my profession (CPA) 1+1= whatever my client wants it to equalhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
Back to the original subject-should a woman who openly lived in sin and never publicly(or to anyones knowledge privately) repented be allowed to have a Catholic Funeral? She was publicly thumbing her nose at the Church. Seems like a no brainer to me. I think we need more Priests like this Priest

 

[Ani_Ibi]

estesbob:

should a woman who openly lived in sin and never publicly(or to anyones knowledge privately) repented be allowed to have a Catholic Funeral?

No.

 

[fix]

Ani Ibi:

The “Talents” and Our Testing

Very interesting.

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Sorry fix a little lame but since you don’t exist I trust you don’t mind my stealing your name-calling strategy. I’ll get more used to it as I practice. Alan

I am honored you would steal from me, I think.:tiphat:

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

Both, kind of.

Its method of proclamation for sure, but I assert that in having a faulty method of proclamation its meaning and therefore truthfulness also suffers. Being rude and appearing self-righteous are not solitary sins. It has long term ill effects on the truth because it vaccinates the ignorant against future education.

Remember satan can quote scriptures too, and did so to tempt the Lord. Of course it’s easy to do Monday morning quarterback on that and say it’s obvious what was going on, but would we have known how to respond if we’d been with Jesus those 40 days?

Likewise when somebody in a preacher suit and credentials comes up to me and to my fallible perception behaves offensively toward me or my God, then I am going to be on alert and judge even the motives and not just the facts when the truth is quoted me.

What if I were in the desert for 40 days with Christ, nearly starving, hallucinating, and the devil said, “it’s OK, you can eat now.” Then don’t you think I might be tempted to think that it was really an angel and not the devil?

Yes, I think both. The truth can be presented in such a way that it becomes a lie.

Alan

So you are not debating truth. You are simply giving an out for people to disbelieve truth if they do not like the presentation.

Do you think that it is beneficial for people to not know the truth? Do you think that every time a sinner is corrected in charity that it is rude? Do you think the Apostles should have been given a pass to following Jesus because he was impatient with them in the garden? After all, it was late and they were tired - what was Christ’s problem?

As for being vaccinated against the truth because of one bad experience - that is lame and undermines the reality of the inner strength of the human person.

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

I appreciate you clearing that up. I thought fix really did exist, and that he was annoying.

Now that I know he doesn’t exist, I no longer have an opponent. Game over by default. Now I can log off for a while and maybe go sit in a dark room with my eyes closed and not think of anything.

Alan

I didn’t clear up anything. My saying “Fix does not exist” was actually a new code language I derived that actually means that “Fix is a good debator”. See what happens when you miss the nuances of the conversation?

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

Then we should determine whether they get a funeral by the sinfulness of the survivors, not the deceased.

If we don’t know of any “good” Catholics that want to attend the funeral, then shouldn’t we just can it?

Alan

So what is the point of the funeral mass?

 

[Brad]

Ani Ibi:

Whew. buffalo and I have been fighting over who would honour you. He insists he should be the one to honour you because he thought of it first. I insist it should be me who honours you because it’s my turn.

Oh please don’t waste your energy.

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

Maybe you think it’s simple, but with all of today’s modern surveillance technology, the First Lady of the United States doesn’t even know with whom her husband is sleeping until after she goes on TV and viciously defends him, calling the whole idea a “vast right wing conspiracy.”

What?

AlanFromWichita:

Besides, the reason it doesn’t bother me too much, is that me and the saints don’t pay as much attention to the literal meaning of the Bible as it more profound and deeper meanings beyond allegorical and into Divine Union. That’s what I’m going for, so whether an actual fish swallowed Jonah is not as important to me as what the fish story tells us about Christ. It’s all about Christ and His two greatest commandments; confrom unto Him and everything else is just mundane detail.

Alan

It sure is about Christ. He didn’t abolish the law. He fufilled it. He clearly stated we had standards to follow.

As far as the saints not taking the Bible too literally, that’s just plain false. From St. Jerome to St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to St. Theresa of Avila to St. Ambrose to St. Bridget and on and on - were immersed in the Bible and radically opposed to sin and evil as defined by the Bible.

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

I’d say probably about as certain as I am that all absolutists are moral.

Alan

So you made 2 false statements and counting.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

estesbob:

Seems this thread has gone far astray. Now we are discussing math-In my profession (CPA) 1+1= whatever my client wants it to equalhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
Back to the original subject-should a woman who openly lived in sin and never publicly(or to anyones knowledge privately) repented be allowed to have a Catholic Funeral? She was publicly thumbing her nose at the Church. Seems like a no brainer to me. I think we need more Priests like this Priest

In the following, I’m using a hypothetical “she” since you are making a conceptual statement and not one specific to this case. OK?

The question is not whether she sinned, but whether she blatantly exposed others to sin or otherwise led them astray. At least as far as the worldly ramifications which are really the only ones we 'uns in the world know how to enforce.

In other words, did she wear a T-shirt in the Communion line with an arrow pointing to her husband and saying “I’m proud to receive Communion while shacking up.” Or did she and her shackup partner keep a low profile and the only reason anybody knows about their personal lives is from gossips? I think it’s important because in one case you can reasonably blame the couple for knowingly blaspheming the Church. In the other case you have committed the same sin but you have not openly blasphemed; you have just failed to conceal your own evil sufficiently. In the latter case, would that be considered sinful negligence over and above the base sin? Would it matter if they lived next door in apartments but were seen coming out of the apartments at 5 am by a bicycle rider, who then spread the news?

The sexual sin hurts them directly, and the Body in only mystical ways. All sin hurts in mystical ways, so the mystical ramifications are a separate issue and outside the comparison I’m making – IOW I’m stating as axiomatic an assumption that we are not judging each others’ hearts but their behavior here because that’s the only way we can be somewhat objective.

In the case that the word gets out about what they are doing, those who are culpable for the word getting out, such as themselves for flaunting their relationship in public and/or any gossips who completed the rumor circuit, have committed a separate sin the way I see it.

Scandal cannot occur when it is not known socially. That’s why Miss Manners declares bedroom activity out of the realm of manners. She declines to comment on what constitutes rudeness there as long as it is kept there. By definition, manners are only in play when it involves social intercourse not physical intercourse so she stays out of those aspects.

Now, if you were a neighbor and caught him with a friend over – just happened to see them “saying” goodbye when you went out to look for the cat and knew nothing else, are you obligated by the Call of Truth to send that in to the diocese so they know not to give him a funeral?

Alan

 

[Penny_Plain]

fix:

Maybe I really do not exist…

There is no Fix.

There is only Zule.

Alan, stirred or shaken?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ani Ibi:

In what we would call normal times, dissent (heresy, schism, apostasy, etc.) was quickly disproved and suppressed by the legitimate governing authority of the Church. Such acts of governance provide real charity to those that are venturing into error, and its subsequent loss of faith, while at the same time sparing the faithful from being led down deadly paths.

“Normal times,” meaning maybe 12th century AD before man discovered freedom of speech?

“Quickly disproved and suppressed” I love it. That’s like saying an abortion quickly suppressed the effects of promiscuity.

According to New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia let’s look at some of this real charity.

During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as the institution, did not exist. But eventually Christian Europe was so endangered by heresy, and penal legislation concerning Catharism had gone so far, that the Inquisition seemed to be a political necessity. That these sects were a menace to Christian society had been long recognized by the Byzantine rulers. As early as the tenth century Empress Theodora had put to death a multitude of Paulicians, and in 1118 Emperor Alexius Comnenus treated the Bogomili with equal severity, but this did not prevent them from pouring over all Western Europe. Moreover these sects were in the highest degree aggressive, hostile to Christianity itself, to the Mass, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization; hostile also to feudal government by their attitude towards oaths, which they declared under no circumstances allowable. Nor were their views less fatal to the continuance of human society, for on the one hand they forbade marriage and the propagation of the human race. and on the other hand they made a duty of suicide through the institution of the Endura (see CATHARI). It has been said that more perished through the Endura (the Catharist suicide code) than through the Inquisition. It was, therefore, natural enough for the custodians of the existing order in Europe, especially of the Christian religion, to adopt repressive measures against such revolutionary teachings.

If that’s “real charity” then please excuse me while I amuse myself with some phony love I find outside the above system.

Hoop dee doo. Maybe we should go back to the good ol’ days when we took Truth seriously. Vatican II emphasized that annoying enemy to unity and obedience: Love.

Rabble, rabble, rabble!

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

I am honored you would steal from me, I think.:tiphat:

I intended that as a compliment. I will long remember the day when an argumentative adversary shared a name with me that I know he will vigorously defend, even if I’m not proud of that name.

Perhaps I have a thick “relativist” veneer that I use to combat my odd feelings about my relative proficiency and absolutist feelings at math and other scientific type stuff.

When I taught college algebra to belligerent high school seniors, I learned very quickly that a “relativist” attitude toward math could help set the kids at ease and not feel so stupid as they hid their confusion with cynicism.

In engineering I have always been able to eventually form relationships with those over whom my word dictates what they do. For example, people in the shop know I’m the one engineer who asked their opinion about a design before it was too far down the road to implement their suggestions.

To do that I’ve had to keep my anal-retentive absolutist tendencies hidden. You, my friend, saw through that veneer that others have cursed me for wearing.

It’s all for God. Everyone on this forum deserves a blessing.

Alan

 

[Ahimsa]

So,

dissent-kept-private-and-non-exposed is OK.

But,

dissent-shouted-from-the-roof-tops is liable to be punished via excommunication?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brad:

So you are not debating truth. You are simply giving an out for people to disbelieve truth if they do not like the presentation.

Mostly, yes. Also an out for for those who are confused and choose to remain in the turmoil that is Undecided Land.

By “out” of course, I’m not saying that I think they are objectively innocent. When I judge the facts of a case, I like to consider what is the most “in” and the most “out” mental construct I can conjure in terms of whether I have enough evidence to condemn this person in my heart. The higher the quality of the evidence, the more faith it takes to keep my mind open to the possibility that I Am Not His Judge.

A few years ago in Wichita there was a woman around age 20 who was riding around with some friends about the same age. There was marijuana being used in the car. The driver parked the car at a soccer stadium and then they all got out and got naked. It was on the outskirts of town, where affluent shops and houses were just beginning to spread, and the soccer stadium was just constructed. It was chilly that day, but while none of the others ventured far from the car, one girl decided to take off running, and in the process showed the Whole Town her marvelous spirit by running for a mile or so in her birthday suit, a bit like Lady Godiva but without the horse I guess. I wasn’t there, but this was all about 2 miles from where I worked. Anyway it ended up she came into a housing development and when the people there saw her they called the police who came and got her and took her away. It turned out her friends were still hanging around the soccer field, so based on her confession they went and picked up the other 3 or 4 of her friends and took them in. They also searched the car and found the marijuana.

Do you think this woman is guilty of a sin? It certainly sounds like she and her friends broke several laws. This is an actual story that I told in a truthful way to the best of my recollection. See if you can figure out the “typical” angle this story was actually covered in the Wichita media. It’s all about the presentation. You can’t always blame the listener for gathering a mistaken opinion of the truth.

My point is that it is very hard to extract from a story a human being (who may be biased a little or a lot) what the Absolute Truth is that the person is trying to tell you. Biases, whether in the speaker or receiver or both, or a go-between, messenger, written medium, and other ways of communicating other than mystically, corrupt the communication no matter whose “fault” it is.

Do you think that it is beneficial for people to not know the truth?Alan> No. Sometimes they don’t want to. My mom doesn’t want to know how the computer works, just where the on button is and where to click to look at her stocks. I don’t judge them poorly for choosing to select what they spend their temporal limitations studying.
Do you think that every time a sinner is corrected in charity that it is rude?Alan? No.
Do you think the Apostles should have been given a pass to following Jesus because he was impatient with them in the garden? After all, it was late and they were tired - what was Christ’s problem?Alan> Christ was partly human. His human side was clearly in danger. God may be infinitely patient, but the human side of Him was probably getting pretty desperate about what was going to happen and the disciples weren’t seeming to take it seriously.
Does it mean Christ was not a good friend because he exercised finite patients among friends who fell asleep while on watch for a posse coming to kill him? I don’t think that is a particularly constructive message to take from it. I think the message is that a certain amount of impatience is not objectively sinful.

As for being vaccinated against the truth because of one bad experience - that is lame and undermines the reality of the inner strength of the human person.

One bad experience? I guess whether that’s lame is a relative measure. I’m surprised you are using it against me. A few weeks ago two men got shot in the apartment next door to ours, supposedly over an argument about God. If that’s lame I’d hate to see spectacular. People take this stuff very seriously.

Also, if you were church shopping and the first brand X church you walked into, the first person you saw quizzed you about your life style, and told you how scummy you are, how likely are you going to be to choose that church, unless the guy is sufficiently intimidating that he scares you into staying?

I’d say it is not the severity of an experience that determines whether it is “lame” but a complex combination of factors. Might as well agree that “lame” is essentially relative and is therefore, “lame” for purposes of proving your point.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brad:

I didn’t clear up anything. My saying “Fix does not exist” was actually a new code language I derived that actually means that “Fix is a good debator”. See what happens when you miss the nuances of the conversation?

I might have known that as his cohort you’d side with him, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. Now that I recognize that, I will try to observe these nuances a little more closely.

Thanks for the inside info. You have done me a great service by helping me understand what you write.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brad:

So what is the point of the funeral mass?

My point exactly.

That’s why I decided it was foolish to waste 10 bucks that could by a few gallons of milk, having a Mass said for some people I didn’t know as if that were going to prove a point.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brad:

What?

Sorry, long story. I guess I assumed everybody knew about our little fiasco in the U.S. a few years ago involving our president’s sex life. Never mind, it wasn’t that brilliant an analogy.

It sure is about Christ. He didn’t abolish the law. He fufilled it. He clearly stated we had standards to follow.

You are right. He fulfilled the law, because the written, intellectual law was unable to perfectly describe God’s love, which is objectively beyond the capacity for human language to experientially describe.

Christ had to come here in person to show us how to forgive, because we couldn’t quite gather from the rules and regulations that it was all about love, except perhaps the one scholar who decoded the Two Great Commandments correctly when Jesus asked him to.

1   [1](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans8.htm#foot1) Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.   2  For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.   3  For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,   4  so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.   5  For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit.   6  The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace.   7  For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it;   8  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

I’d say that threats of isolation, name calling, excluding the friends from having a funeral in protest for the sinfulness of the deceased, are all techniques that involve motivation through concerns of the false self that is the flesh, which are power/control, affection/esteem, and security/comfort.

As far as the saints not taking the Bible too literally, that’s just plain false. From St. Jerome to St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to St. Theresa of Avila to St. Ambrose to St. Bridget and on and on - were immersed in the Bible and radically opposed to sin and evil as defined by the Bible.

Wow. That’s an interesting interpretation of what I wrote.

I’m not sure how literally is “too” literally, but I do admit that I don’t have hard statistics on what percentage of time saints devoted toward contemplative activities compared with verbal study.

Whatever that percentage is, I would dare not say it was too little or too much, for it is what it is and is it a measure of God’s holy saints which I would not dare tweak.

My point is there are deeper levels of union with the Bible than the literal meaning, and to miss out on them is one of the great tragedies of life. So many people hunger for union with God, but don’t realize that no amount of intellectual study on its own is likely to get them there.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brad:

So you made 2 false statements and counting.

That’s interesting. You seem to have a very difficult time with this fairly short post. I’d like to see where I am wrong so I can fix it. Let’s see. Here was the post I think you’re talking about. Is it the same one you’re talking about?

  	 				 Originally Posted by **AlanFromWichita**
                *Yes, judging.  He objectively broke a specific forum rule.

In the world of moral absolutists, he should suffer the penalty.

In the world of loving relativists, we should let him be.

In the world of CAF, we should not discuss moderator actions.

Alan*

Are these the statement you are evaluating? Two of these four statements are false? Lemme check each one:

1. Calling me a “troll” was not a violation of forum rules.
2. In the world of moral absolutists, we should let him be.
3. In the world of loving relativists, he should suffer the penalty.
4. It is OK to discuss moderator actions on CAF.

Which of these two contradictions to my previous statements are true? I’m not sure which two your talking about.

Are you referring to a different post?

Alan