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

[JKirkLVNV]

1. Archbishop Chaput
2. Me

Any other takers?

Edit: add Fr Pavone to that list.

You shouldn’t presume to speak for the Archbishop or Fr. Pavone. He’s talked about a leaner church, yes, but he has not spoken of “kicking” people out, rather that they take themselves out. There may also exist in the minds of some of us who very much admire and reverence Archbishop Chaput some doubt as to whether he would come to the same decision as this priest.

Though I don’t have all the facts and I do not know everything about her circumstances, I quite firmly disagree with these actions, as I did with Bishop Brom’s policy regarding no services for the gay pornographer. This is the last thing the Church can do for someone who is in dire need and for their family, who has the grief of their loss and the grief of no funeral mass for the soul of the departed. I think it causes far greater scandal to NOT have the Church’s rites than it does to have the Church’s rites. Charity and compassion should prevail. I’m not saying that she didn’t sin, I’m not saying that we should soft-pedal her sin or any other sin, but I don’t think this is right.

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

. Or he may have visited her and she told him to go to **** and also blasphemed.

I doubt it, he simply sounds like a horrid unmerciful man. Sort of like the priest in Jamestown Rhode Island who would not bury a young lady who died of AIDS. I guess he was too good to do such a funeral.
After all Jesus hung out and ONLY associated with the upright folks…right?

 

[estesbob]

AlanFromWichita:

I don’t see how this priest denying a funeral to a Catholic is any different than other divisive tactics taken by conservative Catholics who wish to cleanse the Church of certain types of sinners.

Alan

I am spomewhat befuddled by your response. Just what are “conservative” Catholics. Are they Catholics who are niave enough to actually beleive Chruch Doctrines are non-negotiable?

And what do you mean by “cleanse the Church of certain sinners”. Should sinners be allowed to speak for the Church? And why would someone who continues to sin and rejects the teachings of the church want to saty in it?

Since when was avoiding divisivness the mission of the Church?

In what way is a Priest who refuses to give a Church funeral to a person who willingly took themselves out of the Church comparable to Fred Phelps?

Is there any straw left where you live after you finished this post?

 

[Brad]

Lilyofthevalley:

. Or he may have visited her and she told him to go to **** and also blasphemed.

I doubt it, he simply sounds like a horrid unmerciful man. Sort of like the priest in Jamestown Rhode Island who would not bury a young lady who died of AIDS. I guess he was too good to do such a funeral.
After all Jesus hung out and ONLY associated with the upright folks…right?

Hmmm. You have already done at least as much negative to this priest’s name as he may have done.

 

[Bella3502]

Hmmmmmm.

Does anyone remember the large Catholic funeral that Jackie Kennedy Onassis had after she died…? Remember all the high ranking Bishops and clergy that attended?

Remember her “living arrangements” with the Jewish man who wasn’t divorced from his wife?

Smells like double standard to me.

 

[Maranatha]

Catholic Heart:

What a smug, self-righteious man…This is a terrible example of “show no mercy” legalism…

Correcting visible manifestations of sin is not self-righteousness but charity.

 

[Brad]

Bella3502:

Hmmmmmm.

Does anyone remember the large Catholic funeral that Jackie Kennedy Onassis had after she died…? Remember all the high ranking Bishops and clergy that attended?

Remember her “living arrangements” with the Jewish man who wasn’t divorced from his wife?

Smells like double standard to me.

That’s not THIS particular priest’s fault.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Bella3502:

Hmmmmmm.

Does anyone remember the large Catholic funeral that Jackie Kennedy Onassis had after she died…? Remember all the high ranking Bishops and clergy that attended?

Remember her “living arrangements” with the Jewish man who wasn’t divorced from his wife?

Smells like double standard to me.

The Kennedys do crop up, don’t they? I wonder if they got special permission to scatter JFK, Jr.'s ashes (may he rest in peace), something normally forbidden to the rank and file Roman Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

Lilyofthevalley:

. Or he may have visited her and she told him to go to **** and also blasphemed.

I doubt it, he simply sounds like a horrid unmerciful man. Sort of like the priest in Jamestown Rhode Island who would not bury a young lady who died of AIDS. I guess he was too good to do such a funeral.
After all Jesus hung out and ONLY associated with the upright folks…right?

I don’t know how to get this across - it depends on the direction you are facing when you die. Towards God or with your back to him.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Allowing the Kennedy’s to call themselves Catholic is oftentimes a scandal.

I’m not as bothered when Catholics prayerfully hold certain private beliefs that are contrary to church law as I’m bothered by people who use their Catholicism to subvert the Magisterium, their local Bishop or Priest.

I once was a person who believed that the government had no right to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion or that the government should execute certain criminals. It was only through prayer that I came to see that these positions were not consistent with God’s will and values.

I think that the Kennedy’s, Daschle’s, Pataki’s, Cuomo’s, Kerry’s, Guiliani’s et. al. need to decide if they want to call themselves Catholic and cease to public subvert the teaching authority of the Pope and their Bishop or if they want to be politicians and cease to call themselves Catholic.

In the meantime, we should feel free to call these particular public Catholic to task. Not because we want to “judge” them but as recognition that as Catholics we believe that the authorized teaching authority is only with the Magisterium and our local Bishop and their public false teaching is deserviing of rebuke.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Orionthehunter:

Allowing the Kennedy’s to call themselves Catholic is oftentimes a scandal.

I’m not as bothered when Catholics prayerfully hold certain private beliefs that are contrary to church law as I’m bothered by people who use their Catholicism to subvert the Magisterium, their local Bishop or Priest.

I once was a person who believed that the government had no right to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion or that the government should execute certain criminals. It was only through prayer that I came to see that these positions were not consistent with God’s will and values.

I think that the Kennedy’s, Daschle’s, Pataki’s, Cuomo’s, Kerry’s, Guiliani’s et. al. need to decide if they want to call themselves Catholic and cease to public subvert the teaching authority of the Pope and their Bishop or if they want to be politicians and cease to call themselves Catholic.

In the meantime, we should feel free to call these particular public Catholic to task. Not because we want to “judge” them but as recognition that as Catholics we believe that the authorized teaching authority is only with the Magisterium and our local Bishop and their public false teaching is deserviing of rebuke.

Absolutely NO argument (except you need to remember that Holy Mother Church has not completely or irrevocably shut the door on capital punishment. I don’t favor it, but that’s a different thread). We should call them to task. I just would maintain that we ought to go ahead and give 'em a funeral mass, too. If it doesn’t do them any good, it will at least benefit the souls in Purgatory and it will comfort their families.

 

[HagiaSophia]

JKirkLVNV:

The Kennedys do crop up, don’t they? I wonder if they got special permission to scatter JFK, Jr.'s ashes (may he rest in peace), something normally forbidden to the rank and file Roman Catholic.

His ashes were in an urn, they were not “scattered”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

HagiaSophia:

His ashes were in an urn, they were not “scattered”.

I’m glad to learn that.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brad:

If someone is a quiet dissenter, no harm no foul.

If someone is a vocal dissenter but not in a teaching capacity, they are easily refutable.

If someone is causing a disruption during prayer, mass etc. then they are sinning and should be kicked out of that particular church because of disruption but not necessarily kicked out of the Church.

You and I seem like we’re on the same page. I think the toughest one for those weak in Catholic faith to accept is your first point, no harm no foul. Is sin harmful to the sinner? Yes. Is it harmful to those who see it and don’t call it? Yes.

Is it harmful to those who see it, give warning, but do not judge it as good or bad but let those who have ears hear and trust the Holy Spirit to do God’s part of the work? No.

As far as I know, the only way of people leaving is by excommunication and that is through their own actions, not through those of another person.

I agree this is usually the case. Political figures aside, though, bishops, faithful Catholics have been openly telling people that if they vote for certain political candidates they are objectively guilty of mortal sin, and/or if they are guilty of certain specific sex-related sins they should not receive Communion. They say that, and then 95% of the Catholics get up into the Communion line. We all know those words go in one ear and out the other of most. It’s time to take a different strategy than playing the continuing role of the prosecutor who sits on the left hand of the Judge, and maybe try taking the role of the Defense Attorney Who sits at the right hand of the Judge. Strange things happen. When you forgive people for doing things they know you don’t agree with, it blows their mind and shows them unconditional love. They know already you don’t agree with them – now show them the mercy we’re so famous for.

I agree with Bishop Chaput. Perhaps the Church should be smaller and it would be IF TEACHERS (priests, sisters etc.) taught the truth without reservation.

That depends on the mission of the Church. If our mission is to feed sheep who come in, even if they have little chance of making standard grade Catholic, then maybe it shouldn’t be.

If we have a resource problem, I understand honest dissent over how to best allocate resources, so you might argue that you plant seeds in what you believe the most fertile ground. I’m all OK with that way of looking at it.

You might be right that if TEACHERS taught truth without reservation, and also welcomed spirited skepticism from students as a natural part of the learning process instead of a corruption of the learning process, there may be some short term losses. You know what, though? There might just be some long term gains. That’s based, again, on getting the TEACHERS of the law under control, not on whipping the students into shape.

I personally know such a priest and his church is small but the grace is there and, over time, the fruit of the harvest will be very visible.

Thank God for such priests.

So, is it that you think priests should kick people out or is it that you think priest should teach the truth only and not allow anyone at his parish to teach other than the truth?

Maybe you weren’t asking me, but my answer is the latter.

Get the teaching under control and quit yelling at the faithful for being confused. That amounts to putting the cart before the proverbial horse.

Alan

 

[Maranatha]

Orionthehunter:

Allowing the Kennedy’s to call themselves Catholic is oftentimes a scandal.

I’m not as bothered when Catholics prayerfully hold certain private beliefs that are contrary to church law as I’m bothered by people who use their Catholicism to subvert the Magisterium, their local Bishop or Priest.

I once was a person who believed that the government had no right to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion or that the government should execute certain criminals. It was only through prayer that I came to see that these positions were not consistent with God’s will and values.

I think that the Kennedy’s, Daschle’s, Pataki’s, Cuomo’s, Kerry’s, Guiliani’s et. al. need to decide if they want to call themselves Catholic and cease to public subvert the teaching authority of the Pope and their Bishop or if they want to be politicians and cease to call themselves Catholic.

In the meantime, we should feel free to call these particular public Catholic to task. Not because we want to “judge” them but as recognition that as Catholics we believe that the authorized teaching authority is only with the Magisterium and our local Bishop and their public false teaching is deserviing of rebuke.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

JKirkLVNV:

I just would maintain that we ought to go ahead and give 'em a funeral mass, too. If it doesn’t do them any good, it will at least benefit the souls in Purgatory and it will comfort their families.

God willing, she will get a Mass. My wife checked with our rectory staff, and we can have Masses said for Catholics and non-Catholics alike so her sinful state should not be a problem I’d guess.

My wife made tentative arrangements for Mass intentions at our parish for both Fr. Giuseppe Mazzotta and Maria Francesca Tallarico. God willing, Monday she will finalize the plans.

I think I should view the priest’s actions, though I think possibly destructive, to have been in good faith. I was not in his shoes, so I judge him no more than the woman I’m defending. He may be using a strategy wiser than I can see from here. I sense by the strangeness of this conversation there is more than meets the eye so I figured in the spirit of spiritual warfare I wonder how can we go wrong in ensuring they both have Masses and leaving the moral judgment to God?

Besides, my wife believes Masses said for people while they are alive benefits them even more than after they’re dead. She used to have Masses said for my father from time to time before he went to get sainted.

Alan

 

[BOBKAT]

HagiaSophia:

His ashes were in an urn, they were not “scattered”.

I’m glad to hear that, the Kennedys always perplex me when it comes to them being Catholic and I often made mention of how JFK jr’s ashes were scattered and now at least I stand corrected on that one. As for what the preist did remember he had the right and the authority and I beleive that her soul is still in God’s judgement not the priest, but he needs to be obedient to God’s law and that is that. Remember God called many a saint to be obedient to their bishops even though it didn’t seem fair but He does test us and maybe we can all learn something from it. Anyhow that is how I see it.

God Bless
Kathleen

 

[Ani_Ibi]

JKirkLVNV:

You shouldn’t presume to speak for the Archbishop or Fr. Pavone. He’s talked about a leaner church, yes, but he has not spoken of “kicking” people out, rather that they take themselves out.

I quoted him.

JKirkLVNV:

There may also exist in the minds of some of us who very much admire and reverence Archbishop Chaput some doubt as to whether he would come to the same decision as this priest.

Ab Chaput spoke of the Church getting smaller.

JKirkLVNV:

Though I don’t have all the facts

Evidently.

JKirkLVNV:

I quite firmly disagree with these actions

Disagree then.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ani Ibi:

I quoted him.

No, you didn’t. You wrote his name, then said "me."

Ab Chaput spoke of the Church getting smaller.
***Yes, he did. He didn’t say he favored kicking anybody out, though. He said (and this is a paraphrase) that lots of people sitting in the pews seemed not to understand that they had ceased to be Catholic. ***

Evidently.
About the case in Italy, not Archbishop Chaput.

Disagree then. *** Thanks, I will.***

 

[Ani_Ibi]

*I quoted him.
*
No, you didn’t. You wrote his name, then said "me."

In post # 10, I quoted him; him being Fr Pavone.

Ab Chaput spoke of the Church getting smaller.

**Yes, he did. He didn’t say he favored kicking anybody out, though. He said (and this is a paraphrase) that lots of people sitting in the pews seemed not to understand that they had ceased to be Catholic. **

A fine tuning of words. I am guilty of the sin of ineloquence then.
“Cheap grace” – easy Christianity – "is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace . . . Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without Church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

“Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field . . . the pearl of great price . . . the call of Jesus Christ, at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows Him. Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, [and] it is costly because it cost God the life of His son – ‘Ye were bought at a great price’ – and what has cost God much, cannot be cheap for us.”

Many Christians - too many Christians, especially in a wealthy country like ours - live their convictions as if they were pious cliches. The language of faith gives us the words to comfort ourselves in the face of disappointment or suffering. But many of us never carry Christ beyond that. We’re embarrassed to share Him with others. We’re afraid to apply His teachings to our economy or our politics. And that suits modern secular culture very well, because privatized faith has no public consequences. The trouble with such faith is this: It’s a form of lying. It’s hypocrisy.

The greatest enemy of Jesus Christ in every age doesn’t come in the shape of the world or the flesh or the devil. It’s the lukewarm faith of His disciples. If we want to know why the world isn’t won for Christ, take a good look in the mirror. Henri Bergson once said, ‘If you want to know a man, don’t listen to what he says; watch what he does.’ The Epistle of James says, ‘faith, if it does not have works, is dead.’ God didn’t make us to be ‘good enough’ Catholics. He made us to be saints. He made us for greatness and heroism. Every human heart, Christian or not, instinctively knows that. St. Irenaeus once wrote that, ‘the glory of God is man fully alive.’ God calls each of us to humanize and transform the world, and if we don’t live life that way, people will seek meaning elsewhere, in counterfeits.

OK I concede. I can’t find the link to Ab Chaput’s words about the Church getting smaller. So I will withdraw his name from my list. But I will put our Pope’s name in his place:

Ratzinger has written that the Catholic Church of the 21st century must likely reconcile itself to being smaller and less powerful in geopolitics while leaving less room for internal dissent.

Evidently.

About the case in Italy, not Archbishop Chaput.

Well I confess that I did not know that Av Chaput is First Nations. My priest and I have been looking for a candidate to ask the Pope to create a Cardinal for First Nations Peoples.