Catholic Diocese Approves Funeral For Local Gay Man

[mlldrl]

Um, no, that is not all you’ve talked about. You compared refusing this man’s funeral with the refusal of a public funeral for John Gotti. I refer to this post:

Hardly a fair comparison.

The only reason for bringing up the situation following the death of John Gotti was to give an example of a bishop who applied the canon to a public sinner. The only comparison that I would make between the two is that they were both public sinners. Gotti was a criminal this homosexual man owned a ‘gay lounge’ (whatever that is) which it’s safe to say contributed to countless people engaging in the sin of homosexual sex.

My question to you is was the bishop wrong to apply the canon in Gotti’s case? If so then when should the canon be applied? If it should never be applied then why is it there? I’d also say that a commentary holds no power. The canon is the law not the footnote.

It also occurs to me that many here who are posting against me that seem to not understand what the term scandal means as defined by the Church. Or perhaps they don’t understand that not having a funeral Mass is not a condemnation of the deceased.

I’ll close by returning to what I said in an earlier post. What is instead of a active homosexual gay lounge owner he was the grand pooh-baa of the KKK. Would you still say there is no scandal?

M

 

[mlldrl]

There’s been a follow up story posted on Life Site News about the devout Catholic homosexual gay lounge owner in a 28 year sexual relationship with another man.

lifesitenews.com/news/san-diego-parish-priest-says-furor-over-funeral-for-gay-bar-owner-was-a-set

In those remarks Rev. Solcia confirmed that the priests at the parish had decided that a funeral service, rather than a Mass, would be appropriate, given that the deceased, John Sanfilippo, was not practicing his Catholic faith, nor had he been to confession or received Last Rites before his death.

M

 

[Personanongrata]

Does anyone remember the funeral of Jackie KENNEDY Onassis??? Any problem there with the Catholic double standard?

 

[Corki]

Does anyone remember the funeral of Jackie KENNEDY Onassis??? Any problem there with the Catholic double standard?

How was Jackie Kennedy Onassis a manifest public sinner?

 

[jsaldar]

It is my opinion that everybody diserves a funeral, be him or her gay, straight, saint, or vile sinner, even a suicide victim. A funeral is asking for God to save this person’s soul. It doesn’t hurt to pray for their souls this may just be their only salvation. Only God is to Judge.

 

[Elizabeth502]

How was Jackie Kennedy Onassis a manifest public sinner?

I have no idea, unless the poster is referring obliquely to Jackie’s private lifestyle of a male companion in her later years. Certainly before then, she was victimized by a philandering husband (some of which occurred during her miscarriages ), and she married after widowhood. Catholic funeral services do not demand sanctity of the deceased, or we can all look forward to our relatives burying us with no Catholic rites whatsoever.

Editing to add: In the case of Jackie, she may well have been in communication with her parish priest, who may have been at her bedside near death and administered last rites. I personally don’t know that, and don’t believe I have the right to information about the state of any dying person’s soul.

 

[Personanongrata]

How was Jackie Kennedy Onassis a manifest public sinner?

Jackie Kennedy Onassis lived with Maurice Tempelsman from 1988 till her death. When he moved in with her he was still married.

Even though it was known fact, she still received a huge Catholic funeral. I think she deserved it and have no problem with the Cardinals etc attending. It was televised. I watched the entire funeral.

I just have an “issue” with the Catholic double standard for the rest of us.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again,

In the case of Jackie, she may well have been in communication with her parish priest, who may have been at her bedside near death and administered last rites.

If the person has repented of whatever sinfulness they accuse themselves of, and received sacramental absolution (private information which no one else has any right to, i.m.o.), then there is no “double standard.”

Editing to add (corresponding with Corki’s comments):
Funeral rites are not beatifcation/canonization ceremonies.

 

[Corki]

Jackie Kennedy Onassis lived with Maurice Tempelsman from 1988 till her death. When he moved in with her he was still married.

Even though it was known fact, she still received a huge Catholic funeral. I think she deserved it and have no problem with the Cardinals etc attending. It was televised. I watched the entire funeral.

So what? Nobody is perfect. Jackie Kennedy Onassi was not a manifest public sinner and she received last rites, including a final confession before she died.

Jackie arranged for her priest, Monsignor George Bardes of St. Thomas More Church, to administer last rites while she was still conscious. He also her heard her final confession. Soon afterward, she slipped into a coma.

netplaces.com/jacqueline-kennedy-onassis/a-life-well-lived/final-days.htm

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

So is masuturbation, artificial birth control, alcohol abuse, etc. Yet no one is comparing people who do these things to murderers…

Ridiculous. Of course we are comparing them to murderers in the sense that they have committed mortal sin. Any other scale for comparison is irrelevant in this context when we are talking specifically about manifest public sinners.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Ridiculous. Of course we are comparing them to murderers in the sense that they have committed mortal sin. Any other scale for comparison is irrelevant in this context when we are talking specifically about manifest public sinners.

But don’t you understand the ethical implications of comparing a murderer to someone who masterbates?

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

But don’t you understand the ethical implications of comparing a murderer to someone who masterbates?

The spiritual implications are the same.

The criminal and psychological differences are great, but we’re not arguing law or psychology.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The spiritual implications are the same.

The criminal and psychological differences are great, but we’re not arguing law or psychology.

Are you implying that God would treat a murderer the same as someone who masterbates?

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

Are you implying that God would treat a murderer the same as someone who masterbates?

I am suggesting that both are mortal sins and that both can send one to hell.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as** gravely sinful**.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”

 

[psi]

if people who commit suicide can these days get funerals, why not this man? What’s the relevant difference?

 

[karow]

There’s been a follow up story posted on Life Site News about the devout Catholic homosexual gay lounge owner in a 28 year sexual relationship with another man.
lifesitenews.com/news/san-diego-parish-priest-says-furor-over-funeral-for-gay-bar-owner-was-a-set
M

From the link:

“In those remarks Rev. Solcia confirmed that the priests at the parish had decided that a funeral service, rather than a Mass, would be appropriate, given that the deceased, John Sanfilippo, was not practicing his Catholic faith, nor had he been to confession or received Last Rites before his death.”

If I could ask Rev. Solcia, how does he know that Mr. Sanfilipo hadn’t been to confession? What proof would there be? Failured of his confessor to come forward? But since the
confession is sealed (and anonymous if conducted behind a screen), how would there be a way to know what he told the priest even if he had been to confession right before he died?

Are priests even allowed to discussion with anyone who does and does not attend confession?

Besides, is receiving Last Rites a prerequisite for a funeral Mass? Because when my Catholic grandmother died in 1984 without Last Rites, she still had a funeral Mass.

 

[mlldrl]

If I could ask Rev. Solcia, how does he know that Mr. Sanfilipo hadn’t been to confession? What proof would there be?

Oh I don’t know perhaps he asked devout Catholic gay lounge owner’s 28 year homosexual lover if his homosexual “partner” ever went to Mass or if he saw a priest before he died. That seems pretty reasonable.

M

 

[karow]

Oh I don’t know perhaps he asked devout Catholic gay lounge owner’s 28 year homosexual lover if his homosexual “partner” ever went to Mass or if he saw a priest before he died. That seems pretty reasonable.

M

I’m not asking if that sounds reasonable. I’m asking how the Reverend can state definitively that the deceased hadn’t been to confession before he died. Because state it definitively he did.

Personally, I’m not sure how well I sit with this public discussion of a Catholic’s sacramental life as portrayed in the article. Especially confession. Which is supposed to have a seal around it.

 

[Corki]

I’m not asking if that sounds reasonable. I’m asking how the Reverend can state definitively that the deceased hadn’t been to confession before he died. Because state it definitively he did.

The original article stated that the priest came to his decision after meeting with the partner. I don’t think it’s too much of a leap to think that the subject of last rites and/or death bed confession might have come up. The man did not get hit by a car; he died after a long illness.

Personally, I’m not sure how well I sit with this public discussion of a Catholic’s sacramental life as portrayed in the article. Especially confession. Which is supposed to have a seal around it.

The seal is on the contents of a Confession. None of which are being discussed.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The only reason for bringing up the situation following the death of John Gotti was to give an example of a bishop who applied the canon to a public sinner. The only comparison that I would make between the two is that they were both public sinners.

JoP married people are public sinners too. Would you use John Gotti as a comparison for them?

Gotti was a criminal this homosexual man owned a ‘gay lounge’ (whatever that is) which it’s safe to say contributed to countless people engaging in the sin of homosexual sex.

Gotti was more than a mere criminal, he was a murderer and thug who assaulted and seriously injured people. He was a violent sociopath.
This man was in a gay relationship and own some kind of “gay lounge.” I don’t know what it that means, but there’s plenty of bars that contribute to countless people engaging in sin of pre/extra marital heterosexual sex.

My question to you is was the bishop wrong to apply the canon in Gotti’s case? If so then when should the canon be applied? If it should never be applied then why is it there?

I’d say the Gotti case was probably a right decision given the serious level of evil that Gotti’s life was dedicated to.
Its not that it can’t be applied but that its applied only rarely and for very serious reasons.

I’d also say that a commentary holds no power. The canon is the law not the footnote.

Indeed commentary itself holds no power. However as any lawyer will tell you, simply knowing the text of law means you know little more than nothing. Canon law is no different, there’s context, application principles, and guidance that’s received from various other documents.

It also occurs to me that many here who are posting against me that seem to not understand what the term scandal means as defined by the Church.

Scandal is anything that would lead another to sin or despair. That applies equally to the refusal of a funeral.

Or perhaps they don’t understand that not having a funeral Mass is not a condemnation of the deceased.

And perhaps some don’t understand that having a funeral Mass in no way implies the person was a saint or lived 100% in accordance with Catholic teaching.

I’ll close by returning to what I said in an earlier post. What is instead of a active homosexual gay lounge owner he was the grand pooh-baa of the KKK. Would you still say there is no scandal?

So now we’re comparing a man in a gay relationship not only to a murderer but also race hating bigots? Wow…