Denial of Catholic funeral rites
Canon 1184:§1. Unless they have given some signs of repentance before their death, the following are to be deprived of ecclesiastical funeral rites: (1) notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics; (2) persons who had chosen the cremation of their own bodies for reasons opposed to the Christian faith; (3) other manifest sinners for whom ecclesiastical funeral rites cannot be granted without public scandal to the faithful. §2. If some doubt should arise, the local ordinary is to be consulted; and his judgment is to be followed. (*1983 CLSA translation)
We have to be careful about setting up a false dichotemy between the law and the spirit. The law not only only expresses a right of the Christian faithful but also manifests a benevolence and mercy regarding ecclesiastical funeral rites. The Church wants to bring the mercy of Christ to the grieving even as it commits the deceased to his mercy as well. It is not a conservative or liberal thing in my estimation. Perhaps there are some points worth consideration here.
As canon 1176 §1 provides, the Christian faithful departed are to be given ecclesiastical funeral rites according to the norm of law. Other canons are “generous” regarding arrangements (c. 1177) and about who may receive ecclesiastical funeral rites (c. 1183). The law however is strict about denial of this right. In fact, the denial of a right in the Church should be understood as a last resort action. In a sense, the threat or possibility of such a denial is intended to elicit repentence and reform from the erring member of the faithful.
"Father Mazzotta said that he had performed the liturgy of absolution for the dead. " This sounds like the technical term for a prayer said over the body following a requiem Mass, but other that that, I don’t know what that means in the article’s context. One wonders if there had been sacramental confession while the woman was living. Then of course, the priest was bound by the seal and obliged to avoid direct and indirect disclosure.
At any rate, if the lady had shown some sign of repentence before death, even apart from that placed in sacramental confession, the priest would still have acted illicitly (and improperly) in denying her ecclesiastical funeral rites. If so, such an arbitrary use of authority is lamentable.
In the case of any doubt about whether the conditions were met for the denial, including whether or not public scandal to the faithful would occur if the funeral was conducted, the case should have been submitted to the local ordinary (usually the diocesan bishop in this context) and his judgment followed. Sometimes a greater scandal is created among the faithful when ecclesiastical funeral rites are denied.
So then, even though such cohabitation presents an objectively grave moral situation, by itself the condition of her having being a manifest sinner was inadequate to invoke the denial mentioned in canon 1184. The lack of repentence and the scandal would also have to be present beyond positive doubt.
But when the conditions of the canon are met, they simply state a reality: that someone has deliberately, obstinately, gravely and publicly made a choice to seriously break communion with the Church in some way. If that happens, Church authority is bound to honor the wishes placed by the decedent in this life.
