Catholic Diocese Approves Funeral For Local Gay Man

[Joe_5859]

I guess I haven’t fully formed my ideas in this area, but why should I let that stop me?

I’m somewhat torn. I understand the canon about denying Catholic funerals to manifest sinners. Scandal is something we do need to avoid and is not given much attention in the world at large (CAF members notwithstanding ).

And yet, I can understand how any pastor of souls (priest or bishop) would be extremely hesitant about applying the canon too broadly and turning one family’s moment of profound grief into a catechetical moment for the world-at-large.

Whichever choice the bishop makes, he’ll get maligned in the press by someone. It’s one of those situations which makes me glad that I’m not a bishop. And it moves me to pray for our shepherds who have to make such tough decisions.

 

[mlldrl]

@Joe5859

I understand being torn. But I go back to the situation of John Gotti. He was denied a funeral Mass but the family was allowed to have a memorial Mass after the burial. I’m not sure if a priest was at the graveside.

cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/14/national/main512202.shtml

The funeral service was not a Mass of Christian Burial, as the family had hoped. Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Daily, head of the Diocese of Brooklyn, ruled that Gotti was not entitled to a funeral Mass.

At issue was a church precept called “scandal” — the idea that the wrong message would be sent to the church faithful by granting a funeral Mass to someone who lived outside church teachings. The denial is not a judgment on the deceased’s lifestyle, since the church believes only God can make that determination.

Daily did allow Gotti’s burial in the Catholic cemetery, where a who’s who of 20th century Mafiosi are buried.

M

 

[Joe_5859]

@Joe5859

I understand being torn. But I go back to the situation of John Gotti. He was denied a funeral Mass but the family was allowed to have a memorial Mass after the burial. I’m not sure if a priest was at the graveside.

cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/14/national/main512202.shtml

M

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I do think there is probably a difference when it comes to the John Gotti and random-gay-man-from-San-Diego in terms of qualifying as a “manifest sinner.” Of course, with the advent of the internet as a primary news source, we get to hear about all kinds of manifest sinners we would have otherwise never heard about.

 

[Lujack]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I do think there is probably a difference when it comes to the John Gotti and random-gay-man-from-San-Diego in terms of qualifying as a “manifest sinner.” Of course, with the advent of the internet as a primary news source, we get to hear about all kinds of manifest sinners we would have otherwise never heard about.

You know, this is an interesting point. Scandal only becomes scandal when its public-if not for the internet, who would even have known about this funeral?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it…

 

[Corki]

In that sense, he is no different to a married, heterosexual man who cheated on his wife having a funeral at a Catholic Church.

And for all we know, he may have repented as his last confession.

The Church teaches that there is a difference in how a “manifest public sinner” is treated publically by the Church vs. other sinners.

There is also a difference in the sins noted since infidelity is a sin but homosexual acts are both a mortal sin AND intrinsically disordered. The Church does not teach that all sin is equal, not even all mortal sin.

And the talk of “scandal”. Said “scandal” only exists in those who choose to feel scandalized.

You do not understand the sin of scandal. The people who are scandalized are not those committing the sin. The sin of scandal occurs when someone, usually someone in authority, acts in such a way as to give, or seem to give, approval for a sinful act. Giving scandal is a sin because it may cause another to sin as well.

Whether or not this funeral will give scandal is the question. It seems it is a parish in a predominantly “gay” community so I somewhat doubt that anyone is going to be led to sin that isn’t already of that inclination already. Sad but true.

 

[centurionguard]

You know, I don’t particularly think this is anybody’s business. Its between the Church and the family, and that has been settled.

Jesus would likely say judge the sin (Not) the sinner.

And as someone already pointed out in this thread (“He may have already repented”).

The secular media link given by the OP relies purely on conjecture.

 

[mlldrl]

You know, this is an interesting point. Scandal only becomes scandal when its public-if not for the internet, who would even have known about this funeral?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it…

True in the sense that now more people know about the scandal but that doesn’t really matter since it’s a scandal for the local Church regardless if only the people in the community know about it or the whole world. Before the advent of national media a story like Gotti’s likely wouldn’t have been known about in the hinterlands.

To my point, in this case the person in question wasn’t just some fellow sitting in the pews but according to Lifesite News was “the owner of a gay lounge”. So not only was he committing a grave sin but he was helping others in their sinful lifestyles too. This man was public about his lifestyle.

lifesitenews.com/news/san-diego-diocese-reverses-parish-decision-offers-catholic-funeral-to-gay-l/

And as someone posted earlier Canon law allows for denial in these situations.

M

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The priest was only following canon law:
The priest was only following canon law:

Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Sorry, but the priest was not following canon law. He was applying his own spin to it. For starters, he clearly did not follow §2. The Ordinary should always be consulted before such a serious decision is made, especially when he has the final say. If the priest was truly attempting to follow the canons he would have consulted the Ordinary first before making such a move.

Secondly, commentary on §1, 3 speaks specifically of avoding the scandal that might crop up due to a refusal of a funeral. Clearly this priest did not consider the scandal that would ensue from a denial of a Catholic burial to this individual.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Devout Catholic?
Partner of 28 years?
2+2=5?

Doesn’t add up.

M

Really? So sinners can’t be believers? Are we going to deny funerals to people in civil marriages now?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

(more) Scandal.

He may have repented. Given his long history of public sin then a private funeral would be called for I think…just like John Gotti. But I’m not a bishop and I won’t have to answer for this scandal…the bishop will be judged for his actions.

M

You want to compare a homosexual relationship to a murderer and thug? Wow…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You make light of scandal, but it is a real danger and results in the loss of many souls. Like it or not, denial of a funeral would have sent an unambiguous message to the “homosexual community” that one cannot be a devout Catholic while engaging in such sins against nature.

Sadly, the diocese has now missed that opportunity to bear witness to the truth.

Scandal swings both ways (no pun intended). As the commentary on canon 1184 states, “deprivation of a church funeral not infrequently causes as much if not more scandal than granting it.”
When the Church is perceived as heartless towards the grieving and “sticking it” to the dead, just as many people will be be lead to possible despair of the faith…

 

[mlldrl]

You want to compare a homosexual relationship to a murderer and thug? Wow…

Both are gravely sinful. Both are objectively disordered. If you die guilty or either you’ll go to hell. Seems to me that my comparison holds up.

M

 

[LemonAndLime]

Both are gravely sinful. Both are objectively disordered. If you die guilty or either you’ll go to hell. Seems to me that my comparison holds up.

M

I think you need to realise that sins are not put in the same “bag”. Homosexuality, regardless of it being sinless, is a sin of loving or being attracted to the one person, and wanting to express that love.

Murder is the outright violent and hateful ending of someone’s life.

Don’t tell me that my gay friend is just the same as a murderer.

 

[mlldrl]

Don’t tell me that my gay friend is just the same as a murderer.

You miss the point completely. The end result of his sin (unless he repents and confesses) will be the same regardless of his ‘loving’ intention. What’s the old cliche? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

M

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Both are gravely sinful. Both are objectively disordered. If you die guilty or either you’ll go to hell. Seems to me that my comparison holds up.

M

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

 

[mlldrl]

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

(I think you just did) In response I’ll just repost what I posted above.

You miss the point completely. The end result of his sin (unless he repents and confesses) will be the same regardless of his ‘loving’ intention. What’s the old cliche? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

I am not sure what you mean by comparing people since all I have talked about is the results of unrepented mortal sin.

M

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

(I think you just did) In response I’ll just repost what I posted above.

I did not.

I am not sure what you mean by comparing people since all I have talked about is the results of unrepented mortal sin.

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:

Given his long history of public sin then a private funeral would be called for I think…just like John Gotti.

Hardly a fair comparison.

 

[centurionguard]

You miss the point completely. The end result of his sin (unless he repents and confesses) will be the same regardless of his ‘loving’ intention. What’s the old cliche? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

M

**(unless he repents and confesses) **

What’s to bring proof in the OP’s media link that states without a doubt that the gay gentlemen didn’t seek repentance?

I’ve seen nothing conclusive to prove the sinner had not.

Respectfully; anything else in an attempt to bring proof of this is pure conjecture with bias judgment mixed with it.

The priest who did the Funeral is not at any liberty by Church Law to disclose any circumstances concerning the gay man’s confession.

Peace
Chris

 

[Elizabeth502]

Scandal swings both ways (no pun intended). As the commentary on canon 1184 states, “deprivation of a church funeral not infrequently causes as much if not more scandal than granting it.”
When the Church is perceived as heartless towards the grieving and “sticking it” to the dead, just as many people will be be lead to possible despair of the faith…

Excellent point, Father.

 

[LemonAndLime]

You miss the point completely. The end result of his sin (unless he repents and confesses) will be the same regardless of his ‘loving’ intention. What’s the old cliche? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

M

What about allowing the funeral of a man who watched porn? Or had an affair? I’m sure there would be no contraversy over that.