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

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

I think the word you can’t remember is “hypocrisy”.​

In some ways, the Church authorities have become far stricter in moral matters. This would be impossible if there had not been a corresponding increase in the quality of Catholics - for the churchmen who come up with the teachings, and who theologise and moralise, and teach them, have to come from somewhere. People would not agonise over these issues, if they were conscienceless lumps.

What you refer to is no surprise - Cardinal Spellman wanted nukes to be used during the Korean War; hardly a “pro-life” sentiment. And it’s notorious that the Church used to employ torture: the unfortunates who were executed by Leo X for plotting against him (Father Philip Hughes has the details) had their flesh torn with red-hot pincers. Quite how this squares with the CCC’s very explicit (& welcome) condemnation of torture, I don’t know.

Sometimes, people are too powerful or popular to be criticised: Henry VIII is remembered by Catholics for his treatment of the Church; not for the mistresses he had when he was still a Catholic. ##

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Gottle of Geer:

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.

Perhaps the best model for analysis of the interrelationships among Catholics, is to use the conceptual framework we learned in Sand Box 101, gilded with a few fancy vocabulary words thrown in to sound sophisticated.

Alan

 

[CanonAlberic]

Catholic conservatism on the rise as priest refuses funeral for ‘sinner’

A PARISH priest has refused to give an Italian woman a Christian funeral because she had “lived in sin”. Father Giuseppe Mazzotta, parish priest at Marcellinara, near Catanzaro in Calabria, said that he had denied a Christian funeral to Maria Francesca Tallarico, who died of breast cancer at the age of 45, because she had lived with her partner but never married him. Her partner was separated and had an 11-year-old daughter.

more…

So loonies live in Italy too… big surprise, as the world seems to be full of 'em!

Peace.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

- 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.

In what way do you believe exercising ecclesial discipline is Pelagian? club-like?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ani Ibi:

In what way do you believe exercising ecclesial discipline is Pelagian? club-like?

Not “ecclesial discipline” - “ecclesiology”.​

I think that the ecclesiology implied is Pelagian and makes the Church seem like a club because it implies that the Church is not of Divine origin, nor founded on grace, but is a purely human group that we are at liberty to leave. What is so dreadful, is that treating the Church as “ours”, as “our project”, is a weakness more often associated, not with theological “conservatives”, but with “liberals”. Opponents often have a lot in common

If the Church is the Body of Christ, then our membership is not for us to cancel (as one would, in a purely earthly club, which can exist without us) - for what sort of body is it that has the hand deciding to leave, or the eye ? Our membership in the Church is not ultimately based on our choice, but on Christ’s choice of us. That makes it a Divine choice, which is therefore free - so when God chooses, He chooses freely, not because the person chosen has, of himself, anything in himself to draw God: for all we have and are is from God. And that choice is therefore a gracious choice - it stems from the free sovereign and choosing Love of God; not from anything in us, nor from necessity, or fate, or whatever. Pelagius thought that man could, sometimes at least, begin his own justification - St. Augustine’s great contribution, was to show that belonging to Christ depends from beginning to end entirely on the grace of God, and never begins from man ##

 

[Ani_Ibi]

OK. I am open to suggestions. If leaving the Church or requiring people to leave the Church is not appropriate discipline, then

1. do you disagree that discipline may, at times, be necessary?
2. if you agree that discipline may, at times, be necessary, then what form should discipline take

a) so that those disciplined may receive clear instruction on how to amend their ways? and

b) so that those watching may receive clear instruction on how to avoid falling into the trap that those under discipline have chosen for themselves?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ani Ibi:

1. do you disagree that discipline may, at times, be necessary?

Yes. The Church needs to maintain the consistency of her teachings. Those religious and lay people who are in charge of teaching and doing other Church business should absolutely conform the best they know how. If these people speak from their positions of authority in the Church, against Church teachings, then the Church has not only a right but a solemn obligation to stop it.

For those lay people who speak publicly against Church teachings, she has only to maintain the truth as promulgated by her teachers. These people are giving the Church jurisdiction over them in the way they are inviting the spiritual equivalent of slander, and although it may not be well advised, I certainly would not find fault with the Church speaking publicly against a false public claim, even if by one of her own members.

For those lay people who are bona fide mortal sinners, no. It isn’t up to the Church to punish someone for their sins. Surely when Christ gave her the authority to hold things bound, He didn’t expect her to do so at the expense of all His other teachings. Gosh, we even like to say when we excommunicate somebody that it is not about punishment or discipline, but about protecting the sinner from harm from receiving unworthily.

1. if you agree that discipline may, at times, be necessary, then what form should discipline take

Discipline makes disciples out of us. One way to do that is with threats and bribes; another way to show our light that is so beautiful everyone wants a piece of it. Christ mocked those who used stones, condescention and condemnation in the heart, negative gossip, and other persuasion and punishment against sinners. Therefore I think, to repeat a cliche, want to try using honey instead of vinegar to make disciples.

Therefore, discipline should ideally be as infinitely loving and forgiving of sinners, anyone who humbles himself, and the persecuted, just as Christ showed us.

a) so that those disciplined may receive clear instruction on how to amend their ways? and

Tell them the truth. If they have ears they will hear. You raise a good question about how to amend their ways. We are experts at asserting they must change their ways, but what resources do we offer to help them, and how accessible are they? Look at how many people struggle with smoking. Having bad attitudes or lifestyle can be just as difficult to change. I think the Church has a beautiful apophatic tradition of mysticism and conversion, and I think she needs to get these tools a little more out of the cloisters and out where the laity can start learning “how to” go about improving their spiritual life.

There is a chasm between the spirit mind and the carnal mind. The carnal mind can be trained with punishment and reward, as can a dog or a cat. The spirit mind, though, takes a little bit different approach. That’s why I have emailed the Holy Father requesting the Church teaches more mystical theology to compliment her kataphatic teachings on dogmatic theology. She is the world’s standard for her familiarity with the Spritual Journey, with the likes of St. John of the Cross. Most Catholics know little about it, though, other than anecdotal. Mysticism is not just fairy tales. It is really the theory underlying what it takes to transform people’s hearts toward divine Union.

b) so that those watching may receive clear instruction on how to avoid falling into the trap that those under discipline have chosen for themselves?

Those watching need to be taught they they are to be guided by the truth, not by watching what other sinners do. Whether other sinners are punished for their sins should have absolutely no relevance on whether we are expected to avoid sin.

The idea that we must punish a sinner for the image of the Church or to protect the Truth is precisely one major lie that Christ continuously combated, and still does to this day. This “obligation” to apply worldly punishment to wrongdoers based on surface observations (since after all we can never determine mortal sin culpability with absolute objectivity) is a human invention that has existed since before Jesus walked the earth, and is one of the fundamental lies that He came here to combat and die for. He took the punishment for our sins upon himself.

One thing I wonder, though. If a person does not receive a reward in heaven if they have already received an earthly reward such as doing their good deeds in public, then if you sin in public and are given an earthly reward, then does that cancel your debt to God and prevent heavenly retaliation? If that were the case, then can we quite literally “beat the sin” out of sinners?

Alan

 

[Libero]

Habing read through a number of the threads, i would agree that it is right for the church to stick to its morals.

However the church must realise that it’s position in society has completely changed now. They are no longer in a situation to tell people the morals of life, and expect no oppostion, if people dont like what the church is saying then they shall just ignore it.

I do not think that changing church policies is the right thing to do to combat this, but rather take a more progressive stance, take into consideration what others are suggesting. Conservatism on the rise will actually just eradicate the church in some areas. People find it hard to take in all of the rules and more complex teachings of the church, i think that the church should spend more time emphasising on the more attractive policies of the faith to get people into our churches, and then start educating into the other church teachings.

 

[fix]

## Not “ecclesial discipline” - “ecclesiology”.

I think that the ecclesiology implied is Pelagian and makes the Church seem like a club because it implies that the Church is not of Divine origin, nor founded on grace, but is a purely human group that we are at liberty to leave. What is so dreadful, is that treating the Church as “ours”, as “our project”, is a weakness more often associated, not with theological “conservatives”, but with “liberals”. Opponents often have a lot in common

How is following canon law being part of a club? How is denying a public sinner a funeral mass excluding them from the “club”?

A sinner who is denied sacraments is not excluded by the Church, but exludes themselves by their intentional actions.

 

[Marie]

Right Fix. kumbya never helped anyone. They either want to follow Christ or they don’t.

 

[fix]

Marie:

Right Fix. kumbya never helped anyone. They either want to follow Christ or they don’t.

What bothers me, sometimes, is that some folks think there is a conservative wing and a liberal wing that are extremes and they are in the middle. Following the mind of the Church is not conservative, it is what is expected of us all.

 

[fix]

## 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. ##

A few remarks. From the above quote Fr. Pavone did not say anything about capital punishment that would contradict the CCC. I assume from the quote he was intending that Catholics must accept what the CCC teaches on this topic.

As for Pelagianism that is a false charge. There is an obligation for the Church to protect the faith and the faithful. If many may be lead astray by false teachings and false prophets than those folks have excluded themselves by their actions. They are welcome at anytime, but they have no right to lead others off the road to salvation.

 

[Penitent]

Marie:

Right Fix. kumbya never helped anyone. They either want to follow Christ or they don’t.

I didn’t get the impression anyone on this thread was “kumbaya”–maybe some just feel more sorrow at those who are apparently lost. Hopefully, I’ll be able to follow Christ someday as well as those who apparently do it so much better than me and those of us who actually feel sorry for others–or perhaps I just need a bigger shot of testosterone.

Penitent

 

[fix]

Penitent:

I didn’t get the impression anyone on this thread was “kumbaya”–maybe some just feel more sorrow at those who are apparently lost. Hopefully, I’ll be able to follow Christ someday as well as those who apparently do it so much better than me and those of us who actually feel sorry for others–or perhaps I just need a bigger shot of testosterone.

Penitent

Is it all about emapthy? When a priest obeys canon law the culture calls it conservative. The canon is in place for a reason and that reason does not conflict with justice or charity.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

fix:

Is it all about emapthy? When a priest obeys canon law the culture calls it conservative. The canon is in place for a reason and that reason does not conflict with justice or charity.

Speaking about Pelagius, what was the Church’s response to the Pelagian heresy? And to Pelagius himself?

 

[fix]

Ani Ibi:

Speaking about Pelagius, what was the Church’s response to the Pelagian heresy? And to Pelagius himself?

I guess some may say the Church was to rough back then and needed some reeducation in charity…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Marie:

Right Fix. kumbya never helped anyone. They either want to follow Christ or they don’t.

I just looked up “kumbaya” and it means “come by here.” The song itself was African-American in origin, who apparently are asking the Lord to come near in the case people are in all different emotional states. I’ve played some music for African American church services and found that generally they are very amenable to more classical music, although I don’t ever play that song in our own parish, not because it is predominantly white with some Asian, but because it is not in our hymnal.

If you mean that the “love” approach to faith is silly compared to a strict hard-core disciplinarian approach, then I think you need to review pretty much everything Christ taught on earth.

Perhaps those who implemented whatever part of Kumbaya you don’t like did not do it so well. Gee, the academic approach isn’t even good enough to keep the employees from molesting the customers.

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

I just looked up “kumbaya” and it means “come by here.” The song itself was African-American in origin, who apparently are asking the Lord to come near in the case people are in all different emotional states. I’ve played some music for African American church services and found that generally they are very amenable to more classical music, although I don’t ever play that song in our own parish, not because it is predominantly white with some Asian, but because it is not in our hymnal.

If you mean that the “love” approach to faith is silly compared to a strict hard-core disciplinarian approach, then I think you need to review pretty much everything Christ taught on earth.

Perhaps those who implemented whatever part of Kumbaya you don’t like did not do it so well. Gee, the academic approach isn’t even good enough to keep the employees from molesting the customers.

Alan

Why do you put discipline at odds with love? They are not mutually exclusive. IMO, many in the Church have emphasized the mecy of God without the accepting His Justice. God is both. To deny either one is profoundly unCatholic.

 

[felra]

fix:

Why do you put discipline at odds with love? They are not mutually exclusive. IMO, many in the Church have emphasized the mecy of God without the accepting His Justice. God is both. To deny either one is profoundly unCatholic.

This is the dual-fold reality of God’s love that many Christians, Catholic and otherwise, have a hard time grasping and accepting. Hence, the kumbaya chorus and the lopsided basis for those knowing smiles.

 

[fix]

felra:

This is the dual-fold reality of God’s love that many Christians, Catholic and otherwise, have a hard time grasping and accepting. Hence, the kumbaya chorus and the lopsided basis for those knowing smiles.

Yes, I think it not only originates from kumbaya theology that is so pervasive in the Church, but it comes from our secular culture that has hijacked the message of Christ and morphed it into a pagan, happy, clappy do as you please-you better not judge me philosophy.

Then, when one acts in an immoral way we are to look the other way, never mention it is immoral and label correction or justice as cold hearted and legalistic.