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

[Marie]

Speaking of the feel good theory…Obviously that was never accepted from the begining of the Church. Saying you believe and not living it has Eternal consequences as shown in the first Christian Community.

Acts: 5

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 **Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. **
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch.

 

[Brad]

JKirkLVNV:

No.

Excellent points. I can concur with all of them…and still say that it would have been merciful and compassionate (“the greatest of these is love/charity,” depending on the translation you prefer) to have given her a funeral Mass. It’s not as though she’s going to latter throw it back in his face by continuing her sinful lifestyle, thereby making a mockery of it. She’s dead. It would have been the last thing the Church could have done for her and her family.

Quite the opposite. Because she is dead, she has already been judged by God and the priest can do nothing for her either way. As a result, the the decision regarding the funueral mass has no impact on her at all. It does, however, have impact on the family. To celebrate the mass is to say to the rest of the family that mortal sin is of no concern and of no impact on the soul. That is completely opposite the teaching of Jesus and His Church. They would be left with the impression that mortal sin doesn’t matter, because, in the end, all will be well anyways.

This priest did the right thing. He is protecting the souls of those still searching for God and guiding them to the narrow road on which He is found. This is mercy, especially in light of his knowing he would be criticized. This is not about the priest. It is about the souls he shepherds and is responsible to God for.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Nohome:

True, funerals save nobody either, they are far more for the living than the dead. Denial of a Mass is punishment for the living family. Perhaps this will make them decide to never set foot in a Catholic Church again.Nohome

Is this what you are advocating? If so, based on what authority?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Nohome:

It was attitudes just like this that made me realize I am not Catholic and never was. You can have your institutional, legalistic, “we’re better than you” brand of religion. It lacks the campasion of Christ and the true meaning of being Christian.

Nohome

State your authority.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Her behavior and more than likely, as I have seen happen a few times, that is their stated wish when Father offers them the sacrament of the sick and dying. Father is NOT going to disclose that part, but people do state their preference in these situations.

It’s a hard thing to wittness let me tell you. But freewill is respected by God and by the church.

But that’s not what the article seemed to imply.

Let me tell you another story, which I admit is APROPOS OF NOTHING (I emphasize it so that no one else will have to!), that happened in Texas, a loooooong time ago.

There was a family of migrant farm hands, from Mexico, working on one of the farms near my grandfather’s farm. The little baby in the family died. The family didn’t have the means to bury the baby and so the infant was buried on charity. The priest (at that time) of the local parish, where I go to Mass when I go home to visit, would not offer a funeral Mass nor preside at the graveside because the family didn’t have the money to pay him. The pastor of the Baptist church (a holy and loving man of God, not at all the sterotypical pulpit pounder) in which I was raised performed the service.

Implausible? I, as an adult convert to our faith, would find it so, except for two things, really, two people: my grandfather and the the pastor, both of whom are the most upright men I ever hope to know (with John Paul II, they’re my heroes) and neither of whom would ever lie to anyone about anything. I never discussed it with the pastor, nor heard of it from his mouth, but my grandfather remembers it. He’s softened toward the Catholic Church since I converted and when I last asked him about it, he said,“Well, that man isn’t there anymore, that new priest is a really good guy, he talks about Jesus all the time.” So I don’t think he’s terribly interested in spreading scandal about the Church.

Relevance? Possibly none. Or possibly the perceived scandal of a lack of charity on the part of that long-gone priest and, by extension in the minds of people, on the part of the Church.

Is there a possibility in this instance that scandal could be taken if this woman had been given a funeral Mass? Yes, a very real possibility. Is there scandal that could be taken from her ***NOT ***receiving a funeral Mass? I think so. That’s just my opinion, but I think so. In my mind at least, the latter scandal could outweigh the former in terms of appearances, and for as wrong as it is, that’s how people judge: by appearances. There is also the very real possibility that people would have seen the Mass for her as an act of charity and compassion on the part of the Church.

I freely admit that I might be wrong.

 

[Marie]

Nohome:

True, funerals save nobody either, they are far more for the living than the dead. Denial of a Mass is punishment for the living family. Perhaps this will make them decide to never set foot in a Catholic Church again.Nohome

Where ever did you pick up such and idea. The Mass is a sacrament. A sacrament for the entire FAITHFUL church, living and dead. A funeral Mass is NOT done for the family. It is for the repose of the soul of the deceased…faithful Catholic. Empty sentiment does not change the fact the lady chose to remain out side the sacraments in life and in death. Family have NO right to go against her free will. Nor should the church whitewash it for the sake of false compassion.

 

[Marie]

JKirkLVNV:

Is there a possibility in this instance that scandal could be taken if this woman had been given a funeral Mass? Yes, a very real possibility. Is there scandal that could be taken from her ***NOT ***receiving a funeral Mass? I think so. That’s just my opinion, but I think so. In my mind at least, the latter scandal could outweigh the former in terms of appearances, and for as wrong as it is, that’s how people judge: by appearances. There is also the very real possibility that people would have seen the Mass for her as an act of charity and compassion on the part of the Church.

I freely admit that I might be wrong.

Yep! Your quite wrong. People need truth not white wash. Sheese! The priest you discribed should have his ears pinned back…but the case’s are NOT the same by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Marie:

Yep! Your quite wrong.

Well, it won’t be the first time! I trust I can depend on your prayers?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

JKirkLVNV:

for as wrong as it is, that’s how people judge: by appearances. There is also the very real possibility that people would have seen the Mass for her as an act of charity and compassion on the part of the Church. I freely admit that I might be wrong.

We are not called to judge by appearances. We are called to Wisdom and are given much instruction in the Bible and in Holy Writing as to how to go about it. Wisdom is not found in defying the authority of the Church. That authority was given to Her by Jesus Christ himself. Questioning the actions of a priest is not in itself unwise. But doing so without referring to the Church’s teaching is tremendously unwise, uncharitable, and unfaithful.

 

[Marie]

JKirkLVNV:

Well, it won’t be the first time! I trust I can depend on your prayers?

Sure…you got em…just don’t forget to reciprocate… We all need them.

 

[Marie]

Ani Ibi:

We are not called to judge by appearances. We are called to Wisdom and are given much instruction in the Bible and in Holy Writing as to how to go about it. Wisdom is not found in defying the authority of the Church. That authority was given to Her by Jesus Christ himself. Questioning the actions of a priest is not in itself unwise. But doing so without referring to the Church’s teaching is tremendously unwise, uncharitable, and unfaithful.

Amen! Acts: 5 pretty much shows that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ani Ibi:

We are not called to judge by appearances. We are called to Wisdom and are given much instruction in the Bible and in Holy Writing as to how to go about it. Wisdom is not found in defying the authority of the Church. That authority was given to Her by Jesus Christ himself. Questioning the actions of a priest is not in itself unwise. But doing so without referring to the Church’s teaching is tremendously unwise, uncharitable, and unfaithful.

I am referring to the Church’s teachings. See the 13th Chapter of 1st Corinthians.

I admit that I’m a sinner, but I haven’t dumped on this priest once. For all I know (and indeed, I assume it!), he’s a good and upright man. I happen to disagree with his decision, that’s all. I hope I am a faithful Catholic, I strive and pray every day to be so.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Brad:

Because she is dead, she has already been judged by God and the priest can do nothing for her either way. As a result, the the decision regarding the funueral mass has no impact on her at all.

Fair enough but then why should we ever have a funeral Mass for any dead Catholic? Why have Masses for the dead at all, for that matter? If it’s too late to do anything for you after you’re dead, then I’d just as soon be dumped in a mass grave with a scoop of salt like they did Mozart. If they “earn” a Mass, then they don’t need one, it seems like to me.

It does, however, have impact on the family. To celebrate the mass is to say to the rest of the family that mortal sin is of no concern and of no impact on the soul.

Oh, pulleeze. This tired reasoning is so overused. :banghead: Take one example of the woman washing Jesus’ feet. She was rightly accused by the Full Mental Assent pharisees. Christ held her up above them, forgave her sins, and then let her go without so much as telling her she did anything wrong or not to do it again. If having a Mass for that lady tells the world sin is no big deal, then Christ must have been a walking advertisement for satan because He routinely got guilty people off the hook and hung around with known sinners. The pharisees told Him that He was sending the wrong message by associating with them. Nothing has changed. Sigh.

That is completely opposite the teaching of Jesus and His Church. They would be left with the impression that mortal sin doesn’t matter, because, in the end, all will be well anyways.

That’s right. They might get the impression that mortal sin no longer automatically leads to eternal death, for some silly reason involving Christ dying on the cross and rising again. By showing kindness to a sinner, you risk giving the impression that there is Good News.

This priest did the right thing. He is protecting the souls of those still searching for God and guiding them to the narrow road on which He is found. This is mercy, especially in light of his knowing he would be criticized. This is not about the priest. It is about the souls he shepherds and is responsible to God for.

I’ve decided that after blowing my horn all over the Internet about giving that priest and woman Masses, there’s nothing in it for me. I doubt their fates will be any different because I had some Mass said for them, so really there’s nothing in it for them either. I guess I was grandstanding – another pathetic show of my own seemingly unbounded pride. I apologize to those who may have been misled to think well of me because of my worldly show of piety. If the Church doesn’t take care of them, and I don’t even know them, than I am faithless and prideful anyway to think I’m going to go “clean up” what the Church left off. I feel kind of sick…

From now on I will no longer confirm or deny my plans to have Masses said for that priest and woman. I’m really not sure what having Masses said is supposed to do, anyway, so I guess from now on I’ll let my wife handle those kinds of things like she normally does.

Alan

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Marie:

Sure…you got em…just don’t forget to reciprocate… We all need them.

Done and done! I’ll remember you tonight when I do the Mercy Chaplet.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

AlanFromWichita:

Fair enough but then why should we ever have a funeral Mass for any dead Catholic? Why have Masses for the dead at all, for that matter? If it’s too late to do anything for you after you’re dead, then I’d just as soon be dumped in a mass grave with a scoop of salt like they did Mozart. If they “earn” a Mass, then they don’t need one, it seems like to me.

Oh, pulleeze. This tired reasoning is so overused. :banghead: Take one example of the woman washing Jesus’ feet. She was rightly accused by the Full Mental Assent pharisees. Christ held her up above them, forgave her sins, and then let her go without so much as telling her she did anything wrong or not to do it again. If having a Mass for that lady tells the world sin is no big deal, then Christ must have been a walking advertisement for satan because He routinely got guilty people off the hook and hung around with known sinners. The pharisees told Him that He was sending the wrong message by associating with them. Nothing has changed. Sigh.

That’s right. They might get the impression that mortal sin no longer automatically leads to eternal death, for some silly reason involving Christ dying on the cross and rising again. By showing kindness to a sinner, you risk giving the impression that there is Good News.

I’ve decided that after blowing my horn all over the Internet about giving that priest and woman Masses, there’s nothing in it for me. I doubt their fates will be any different because I had some Mass said for them, so really there’s nothing in it for them either. I guess I was grandstanding – another pathetic show of my own seemingly unbounded pride. I apologize to those who may have been misled to think well of me because of my worldly show of piety. If the Church doesn’t take care of them, and I don’t even know them, than I am faithless and prideful anyway to think I’m going to go “clean up” what the Church left off. I feel kind of sick…

From now on I will no longer confirm or deny my plans to have Masses said for that priest and woman. I’m really not sure what having Masses said is supposed to do, anyway, so I guess from now on I’ll let my wife handle those kinds of things like she normally does.

Alan

A Mass is never wasted, Alan. It will resonate to the good out into Eternity.

 

[Marie]

JKirkLVNV:

A Mass is never wasted, Alan. It will resonate to the good out into Eternity.

Exactly…God never wastes a Mass. He knows a place for every prayer to water his garden…and the Mass is the best prayer of all.

The teaching of the “communion of the saints” is found in the Apostle’s Creed and other historical writings of the church. The Catholic approach to these words is that they are the “unity of all believers, both in Heaven, Purgatory and earth”. In other words, we have early references in church history that believers are linked together. Their best understanding of that includes those in eternity, and they include those in Purgatory because they have accepted the idea of “another chance” to follow God after physical death.

Catholic theologians DO TEACH that some go to Hell without the possibility of redemption in Purgatory: “To those who die in willful, unrepented mortal sin, which implies a deliberate turning away from God as the last end and ultimate good of man, Catholic teaching holds out no hope of eventual salvation by a course of probation after death. Eternal exile from the face of God is, by their own choice, the fate of such unhappy souls, and prayers are unavailing to reverse that awful doom. This was the explicit teaching of Christ, the meek and merciful Saviour, and the Church can but repeat the Master’s teaching.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Marie:

Catholic theologians DO TEACH that some go to Hell without the possibility of redemption in Purgatory: “To those who die in willful, unrepented mortal sin, which implies a deliberate turning away from God as the last end and ultimate good of man, Catholic teaching holds out no hope of eventual salvation by a course of probation after death. Eternal exile from the face of God is, by their own choice, the fate of such unhappy souls, and prayers are unavailing to reverse that awful doom. This was the explicit teaching of Christ, the meek and merciful Saviour, and the Church can but repeat the Master’s teaching.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

To which we must all say a shuddering, dreadful, but heartfelt “amen.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

JKirkLVNV:

I am referring to the Church’s teachings. See the 13th Chapter of 1st Corinthians.

I admit that I’m a sinner, but I haven’t dumped on this priest once. For all I know (and indeed, I assume it!), he’s a good and upright man. I happen to disagree with his decision, that’s all. I hope I am a faithful Catholic, I strive and pray every day to be so.

…And the greatest of these is Charity…One of the works of Charity is correction. There was a corrective aspect to the priest’s decision. Benedict comments further on Charity: see my signature.

Another consideration in Charity is balancing our response to people holding opposite points of view, particularly when the pov’s are in apparent opposition to the pov of the Church. People have a need to be given clear instruction so that they may draw ever closer to God. Instruction becomes unclear when sin is condoned. Sin is not meant to be condoned. Sin is meant to be forgiven. The means to acquire that forgiveness is repentance and Confession.

And, yes, in good faith, you are partially right. There are times when a priest appears to be lenient (temporarily) on a certain aspect of a person’s sin. The emphasis here, however, is on the ongoing relationship of the person with that priest; the ongoing struggle and commitment of the person to enlarge his or her understanding of Church teaching as it applies specifically to the person in question; the ongoing desire to forgo self and surrender to Jesus Christ.

The temporary lenience is a recognition that people change as a function of time. The person is seen to be on a developmental curve as he or she learns more and is sanctified more and draws closer to God. Jesus Christ did forgive our sins on the cross. However Catholic teaching is that temptation is ongoing because we are creatures of flesh and live in the world and we can therefore choose to distance ourselves from God by choosing sin. We can backslide in spite of our Baptism and Confirmation.

The painful actions of increasing numbers of priests in these times to withhold Church privileges from certain people is about giving clear instruction to all watching that wilful, stubborn, ongoing rejection of God has consequences to the relationship which an individual has with himself or herself – and with his or her community – and with God. In order to spare those watching from taking the same path.

And what of that pain? Christ asks us to take up our Crosses and follow him. Take up our Crosses. It is not going to be all kumbayah and tossing flower petals on our path. JPII has written an extraordinary letter which explains this taking up of our Crosses: Salvifici Doloris. A lot of the faith which Catholics are graced with in times such as these will be accompanied by martyrdom: either white martyrdom or the martyrdom of blood.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Priests for Life: Nobody’s Forced to Be Catholic, Can’t Stand Teachings? - Leave

NEW YORK, July 21, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, has words for people who claim to be Catholic but attempt to push an agenda which is anti-Catholic. A recent press release from the misnamed group ‘Catholics for a Free Choice’, claims “faithful practicing Catholics” are not obliged to “follow church positions on issues like abortion, contraception, access to reproductive health services, end of life decision-making, the death penalty and gay rights.”

“Our response is simple,” said Fr. Pavone. “Nobody is forced to be a Catholic, but if you don’t subscribe to Catholic teaching, have the honesty and integrity to say that you are no longer Catholic. But don’t try to have it both ways. That’s a game children play, not adults.”

However, Father Pavone fails to mention that leaving the CC is still regarded as a mortal sin.​

As for the death penalty - that is interesting as, perhaps, the one issue where many Catholics who would regard themselves as “orthodox” are far from orthodox in the eyes of other Catholics - the result: condemnation for some, whose condemners are themselves condemned by yet others: which is pretty much like what St.Paul rebuked the Corinthians for doing; they too were split into quarrelling factions .

Disagreeing w/ the Pope’s ideas about the death penalty does not even begin to be theologically equivalent to denying a dogma - surely Father Pavone is aware of this. For JP2 did not forbid it; he wexpressed a prudential judgement about its infliction

And since the Papacy has a long history both of practicing and of speaking in favour of the death penalty, speaking in its favour can hardly be regarded as an offence against the virtue of faith; because Papal objections to it are decidedly novel. That’s just like the Church - she has, as Michael Davies pointed out, an Orwellian memory: what was Catholic truth from St. Alphonsus Liguori or Pius XII, becomes false doctrine when held to by a Catholic today.

The problem is larger than Father Pavone realises, and it can’t be resolved by heavy-handed resort to shutting up those who know that the Church’s teaching is an innovation by imposing silence on those with memories of a different doctrine.

Since being Catholic is only very secondarily about subscribing to a list of things to believe, and is primarily a Life, people are not going to leave the CC because they are judged to have ticked an insufficiently large number of boxes next to questions asking “Do you hold the doctrine which teaches…?”. The Church is not a club, any more than being Catholic is living by a law; for the Church is a Body: the Body - and the members of Christ, His limbs and body-parts, not free to leave His body. Catholics belong to Christ because He chose them to be His members - not because they though it would be rather a good scheme to become Catholics. So it’s no use for one lot of Catholics to try to turf other Catholics out of the Church.

Those who say, “Go to a Church which believes what you do”, and the like, seem to have a very weak grasp of ecclesiology - an ecclesiology which is humanistic, Pelagian, reduces the Church to a club, and allows people to speak of the Body of Christ, as “my Church”; even so, they too are Catholics.

As for CFFC - they may be scummy, but so are all of us. None of us is in any position to single out any others as particularly ghastly, since God makes no distinction between us. We are all under condemnation because all of us are unrighteous - that’s the bad news. All of us receive grace through Christ - that’s the good news. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1 Cor 5 9-13

In my letter I wrote that you must have nothing to do with those who are sexually immoral. I was not, of course referring to people in general that are immoral or extortioners or swindlers or idolators: to avoid them you would have to withdraw from society altogether. I meant that you should have nothing to do with any so-called Christian who leads an immoral life , or is extortionate, idolatrous, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a swindleer ; with any like this you should not even eat. What business of mine is it to judge outsiders? God is the judge. But within the fellowship, you are the judges: Root out the wrongdoer from your community.

That would put paid to a lot of people’s being in the CC, if it were taken seriously.​

How many priests & bishops - popes included, of course -have had problems relating to drink or sex ?

How many of us have never slandered anyone, nor swindled them, nor been extortionate ?

Would there be a Church left ? ##