Catholic Diocese Approves Funeral For Local Gay Man

[JReducation]

First of all, very few people die sinless.

Second, if we want to be sandalized, all of us can find something to be scandalized about. That’s not what the Church means when she speaks about scandal. She’s talking about that which can lead others to sin. Not that which we choose to cringe over. The Church could care less what Catholics cringe over. She does not exist to make Catholics comfortable.

Third, Canon Law is very clear.

**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.

Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals. **

§2 of Canon 1184 applies here. The bishop makes the final call. The canon does not say that the faithful have to aprove. It does not even say that the bishop is morally culpable or responsible for his judgment call. Why not? Because he’s not making a moral judgment. He’s making a legal judgment. His judgment does not impugn him in any way. His voice in the matter is final.

It’s very easy for everyone here to say that the bishop should apply #2 in this case. We’re not the loved ones of the deceased. We’re forgetting that the purpose of the Rite of Christian burial is twofold. We pray for the repose of the deceased and the consolation of the family.

The bishop has every right to rule in favor of the family. He has nothing to answer to God for. Because if any Catholic is scandalized because a bishop rules in favor of praying for the consolation of the familly and for the repose of the deceased, then that Catholic has a real problem. He or she is setting himself up as having Ordinary jurisdiction, which he does not have. Only the bishop has that. There is nothing immoral about a bishope exercising Ordinary jurisdiction. The canon gives him that right and it does not lay any boundaries or limits on him.

The Rite of Christian burial is to be denied only when there is grave reason to do so. Put in other words, when there is a higher good. The Church must always choose a higher good.

Protecting people who choose to scandalized is not a higher good. They’re choosing this.

Protecting people from a scandal that can lead to sin is a higher good. In this case, one would have to prove that there is the possibility of sin by holding this funeral in public.

We must alwasy remember that Canon Law does not function on speculation, but on actual facts. If there is no proof that a harm will be done by holding a funeral, the bishop is free to authoritize it. Those who are saying that the bishop will have to answer, may be doing some answering of their own. It is not our job to decide who has to answer to God’s judgment.

As St. Bonaventure used to say to the brothers, “Don’t worry about what your brother has to atone for. Those who concern themselves with the sin of their brother, place themselves at risk of becoming their brother’s judge.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mlldrl]

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

You seem to be unable or unwilling to see my point. I understand that homosexuals are the next pet project for progressive Catholics after all they elected their pro abortion president so I’m sure they think they’ve won that argument. I’m not sure if you don’t understand what grave sin is or perhaps you don’t believe in hell. Or maybe you believe in the concepts of sin and hell but think the Church is wrong to say this or that sin is mortal. No matter, I stand by my assertion that if this were some other public sinner other than a homosexual some here would not argue on behalf of the deceased as they are in this case.

M

 

[redrosetea]

Burying the dead is a copral or spirtual work of mercy, I think its corpal but I can’t remember for sure…If we start deciding who is worthy of a funeral, I doubt many would get one

The church lets God decide who will get to heaven…Imagine that! We don’t get to choose

We would be better served trying to get ourselves to heaven ,and praying when we die, no one will find a reason ,to begrudge us a funeral

 

[mlldrl]

Br. JR

Your post was the best and most reasonable post on the pro side of this argument. Thank you. As a followup do you have any thoughts on the funeral Mass vs. funeral service which the priest originally wanted to hold?

M

 

[redrosetea]

You seem to be unable or unwilling to see my point. I understand that homosexuals are the next pet project for progressive Catholics after all they elected their pro abortion president so I’m sure they think they’ve won that argument. I’m not sure if you don’t understand what grave sin is or perhaps you don’t believe in hell. Or maybe you believe in the concepts of sin and hell but think the Church is wrong to say this or that sin is mortal. No matter, I stand by my assertion that if this were some other public sinner other than a homosexual some here would not argue on behalf of the deceased as they are in this case.

M

Has it ever occured to you some of these sinners might be nice people ,with nice families? I wonder what Christ would do in the case of my BIL who keeps his church open ,because he makes sure it is unlocked and clean each time mass or a communion service is served…He is not a deacon just someone trying very hard to get to heaven and help others get there too…he schedauls wedding trains the servers and assists with fueral arragnements

Guess what? His only son was gay and died under tragic circumstances and was burried from the church…He never approved of the lifestyle but was decent enough not to tell his child never darken my doorway…

My sister wasn’t so lucky her Baptist pastor wanted to throw her son into the ground like a bag of rubbish…but did do a scanty graveside service…the only saving grace was he read a letter an aunt had sent to my sister ,about the pain losing a child and having to go on
…Her only son was hit ahd killed by a car right in front of his home…she knew suffering and had the grace to be merciful

I am glad the people my bil dealt with were kinder and more charitable than the one my sister dealt with…

 

[cradlecatholic5]

**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. **

Bravo! ::clapping:

 

[mlldrl]

@ redrosetea

1. Have you read this entire thread and the articles that prompted it?
   lifesitenews.com/news/san-diego-diocese-reverses-parish-decision-offers-catholic-funeral-to-gay-l/

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

1. I never said anyone wasn’t a nice person. Not even John Gotti, I didn’t know him. I’m sure he had family and friends who thought he was great guy.
2. This also isn’t about personal sin, this is about obvious public sinners and whether or not the Church can withhold a funeral Mass. It’s not about denying a funeral service or refusing to bury the dead.
3. In the end it doesn’t matter if I’m a nice guy or you are a nice gal…if we die in mortal sin we go to hell with all the people who usually are considered bad people.

M

 

[redrosetea]

That is for God to judge and not us…I would rather stand next to someone who hangs their head in shame, and asks for mercy ,than someone who decides they know everything about everyone, and will cry it publically from the rooftops ,in a manner that echos a pharisee

When people start to drag politics into a thread it sends up a big red flag for me

 

[Corki]

Burying the dead is a copral or spirtual work of mercy, I think its corpal but I can’t remember for sure…If we start deciding who is worthy of a funeral, I doubt many would get one

The church lets God decide who will get to heaven…Imagine that! We don’t get to choose

We would be better served trying to get ourselves to heaven ,and praying when we die, no one will find a reason ,to begrudge us a funeral

It was never in question whether this man would have a Catholic funeral or a Catholic burial. The ONLY question was whether it was more prudent to have a funeral outside of Mass rather than a funeral Mass.

This happens all the time with weddings, you know. The priest may decide that because of the large number of non-Catholics present a wedding without Mass is a better choice. In the case of this funeral, the priest may have decided that the risk of this funeral turning into a “statement” was too great. We don’t really know what his major concerns were.

In any case, the Bishop stepped in and made a higher level decision. (one of the linked articles said the man’s family said “no thanks” anyway). That’s the way things work. The priest made a decision based on his prudential judgement, someone appealed the decision, and the Bishop made his own decision.

 

[karow]

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.

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

My question remains: are priests allowed to disclose someone’s confessional habits, how many times someone went to confession during a given time period, or the last time they met someone in the confessional. I couldn’t give a wit what was said during confession.

If priests are allowed to talk about someone’s confessional frequency, I would like to know how anyone can say definitively the last time anyone went to confession, given the screen and the fact that there are any number of priests one can confess to and no one is with anyone else, even the sick and dying, 24/7.

 

[Corki]

My question remains: are priests allowed to disclose someone’s confessional habits, how many times someone went to confession during a given time period, or the last time they met someone in the confessional. I couldn’t give a wit what was said during confession.

If priests are allowed to talk about someone’s confessional frequency, I would like to know how anyone can say definitively the last time anyone went to confession, given the screen and the fact that there are any number of priests one can confess to and no one is with anyone else, even the sick and dying, 24/7.

I don’t think it would be very professional, as a rule, for a priest to casually discuss someone’s Confession habits. But it isn’t covered under the seal of Confession, which you brought up. I don’t know of any actual rule against it, however.

If a person is dying, they are likely either at home or in a hospital. It is practically impossible that a priest would be able to sneak in and hear a Confession without the homeowner or the hospital personnel noticing, don’t you think? If this guy’s partner told the priest that he hadn’t received Last Rites, the priest would probably take him at his word. The screen is not really a factor in a death bed Confession or Last Rites. In a hospital, for example, there is no epectation of anonymity since the priest must have an assurance that the person he is visiting is indeed Catholic.

FWIW, I don’t have a dog in this fight and don’t care at all whether this man has a Catholic funeral or funeral Mass. I am just discussing the priest’s ability to make a decision based on his prudential judgement and the known facts. He didn’t just say “gay man = no funeral”. He met with the partner, assessed the situation, and made a decision on how best to proceed.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You seem to be unable or unwilling to see my point.

Your point doesn’t seem relevant. Mortal sin and public sin are two different things.

I understand that homosexuals are the next pet project for progressive Catholics after all they elected their pro abortion president so I’m sure they think they’ve won that argument.

Huh? Obama has nothing to do with this conversation so bringing that up is rather strange. And secondly, homosexuals are not a “pet project” in this instance. We are addressing Church law/practice in regards to funerals.

I’m not sure if you don’t understand what grave sin is or perhaps you don’t believe in hell.

I’m not sure you understand the difference between what is objectively grave matter and the level of culpability in an individual. Just because grave matter is present does not mean an individual is guilty of a mortal sin.
As for my beliefs on hell (which I do believe in), once again that has nothing to do with the issue at hand: Church law/practice in regards to funerals.

Or maybe you believe in the concepts of sin and hell but think the Church is wrong to say this or that sin is mortal.

Seriously, where on God’s blue marble are you coming up with this nonsense? Where did I ever say anything of the sort?
And the only person saying the Church is wrong in this thread has been YOU. It is you who has said the bishop was wrong for using his Ordinary power as dictated by canon law.

No matter, I stand by my assertion that if this were some other public sinner other than a homosexual some here would not argue on behalf of the deceased as they are in this case.

Funeral Masses are almost never refused. So your assertion is without merit because it happens in about 1 out of a million funerals, usually makes the news because of its rarity, and the Church almost always is made to look bad because of it.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR

Your post was the best and most reasonable post on the pro side of this argument. Thank you. As a followup do you have any thoughts on the funeral Mass vs. funeral service which the priest originally wanted to hold?

M

First, thank you for your complimentary response.

Second, I’m going to ask Father to double check what I say. I’m just an old retired theology professor and that last time that I worked in a parish was 1990.

While I can appreciate the desire to comply with the law, one must also have the desire to do the highest good for the Church and for others, not just for oneself. It was my experience that many people who approached the pastor or the parish administrator with the Code of Canon Law in one hand and the Catechism in the other did not realized the purpose of both.

The former was written to legislate the life of the Latin Church. One way of knowing whether something is a moral law or a discipline that the person in authority implements, using his best pastoral judgment, is to refer to the commentaries. The commentaries will tell the pastor or bishop what the code means and why it was written. I always make reference to “the right to bear arms.” The Constitution does not mention race, gender, age or state of mind. In fact, Blacks and women did not have the right to bear arms. However, constitutional historians and constitutional lawyers serve to help us understand the parameters of that statement. The commentaries and canon lawyers serve the same function. Diocesan chancellors and the bishops themselves ultimately decide whether the commentary or the interpretation of the canon lawyer are acceptable. Someone has to make a judgment call.

The latter was written as a summary or compendium of what the Church believes. It does not pull new doctrines out of the air. It comments, expounds on and refreshes our understanding of the Catholic faith as it has been handed down through the centuries. Where there have been misunderstanding and misapplications, it makes the adjustments. All catechisms are works in progress. The perfect catechism has yet to be written.

When I put these resources to work for me I can see several things happening at the Eucharistic Sacrifice. First and foremost, it is the supreme act of adoration of God. The focus is not the person in the coffin. As St. Bonaventure said, the Eucharist is the sublime act of adoration of the First Principle, through which the co-eternal Son, who is consubstantial with said Principle, freely offers his incarnate self for the redemption of man through the priest’s invocation of the Holy Spirit. It’s all about the Trinity, not us.

If the mass is the continuation of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, who is being redeemed? Equally important, is it the greater good to deny Catholics the right to participate in the Holy Sacrifice? The deceased may have been a lapsed Catholic for many reasons. However, the focus of the mass is not the deceased, but the First Principle who wants to redeem through His Son. It has been made available to all people to whom the Holy Spirit has given the gift of faith and communion with the Apostolic Churches. The parents, siblings and other loved ones have a moral right to be consoled through the redemptive drama at the mass. Unless one can find a higher good for not celebrating the mass, then there is no justification for denying them a mass.

As far as the deceased is concerned, it is our duty to pray for the dead. That also happens at the mass. It is also our duty to bury the dead. There is no wiggle room here. We do not bury the faithful and ignore those who fell away or who never belonged. How we bury difers from the believer and the non-beleiver. Therefore, the Rite of Christian Burial may never be denied to a believer, unless it’s for a greater good.

At a funeral mass, you have two things happening. There is the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy and the Rite of Christian Burial. They can exist independently, because one does not depend on the other. However, those affected by the departure of a loved one are present, one must factor in the highest good for them. If they derive the highest consolation and spiritual benefit from the joint celebration of the Rite of Christian Burial and the Sacrifice of the mass, they should not be deprived of it, unless it is for a higher good. The burden of proof falls not on the deceased or his loved ones. The burden of proof falls on those who would say that a higher good is achieved by not celebrating the mass.

The law regarding scandal is not a negative law. It was not written to avoid something, but to achieve something. Judeo-Christian moral law states the positive by pointing to the negatives to be avoided. However, the mere avoidance of the negatives is not enough. The commandment says, “Though shall not kill.” It points to a good. To take the life of another, when the other is not an immediate threat, is to deny justice to God who is the master of life and death. In reality “thou shall not” is making a positive statement. God is the master of life and death.

When you say “thou shall not scandalize”, in its negative expression it’s saying thou shall lead others away from sin. It’s really a positive statement. You must do everything possible to lead others to the Supreme Good, the Highest Good. You would be justified in denying the mass and even the Rite of Christian Burial, if to celebrate it will lead others away from God. I was not there. The bishop was. I can’t make that call; but he can. If he makes a mistake, the call is made in good faith. He need not worry. God is not like men.

I hope that Father logs in to check this and correct my errors. As I’ve said, I have not done parish work in many years. I’m a formator and novice master, not a pastor. THANK GOD.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mlldrl]

Your point doesn’t seem relevant. Mortal sin and public sin are two different things.

Yes I and think the question is a matter or public mortal sin. But I’m sure you’ll tell me how wrong I am since coming at me is your quest right now.

I’m not sure you understand the difference between what is objectively grave matter and the level of culpability in an individual. Just because grave matter is present does not mean an individual is guilty of a mortal sin.

I understand. Do you?

And the only person saying the Church is wrong in this thread has been YOU. It is you who has said the bishop was wrong for using his Ordinary power as dictated by canon law.

I did? Where did I say that the bishop was working outside of his authority? I believe the bishop is perfectly within his rights to make this decision but I happen to think it wasn’t the wisest. The only person to give me a satisfactory explanation otherwise has been Br. JR. Most of the pro arguments have boiled down to ‘homosexuality is not sinful’ and ‘you’re a hateful person’ in my opinion. Bishops make many wrong decision that are within their powers. Take moving an abuser around…bad decision but within his rights.

Perhaps you can give me a sound argument that I can consider but gauging by your other posts and the types of causes you champion here at CAF I suspect you’ll just attack.

Fire away.

 

[redrosetea]

What about Divine Mercy…St Faustina…the church says this is a true apparition

Christ appears at the moment of death and asks each soul if they will accept Him…He asks 3 times…the Mercy of God is given to each of us, and we will not know who is in heaven ,until we get there ourselves…and I say this in hope, not as a presumption I will go to heaven…I hope I will

 

[mlldrl]

@ Br. JR

Thank you for the followup.

I wonder if you could comment on the priest’s initial response to hold a funeral service and not a Mass specifically? As someone pointed out weddings are sometimes celebrated without a Mass. Mine was. Given the fact that presumably a large number of the deceased friends are likely active homosexuals I see a bigger problem with the Eucharist being abused than my wife’s Protestant family members but my nose wasn’t out of joint when told we wouldn’t have a Mass.

Not sure who Father is you’re talking about.

M

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I did? Where did I say that the bishop was working outside of his authority? I believe the bishop is perfectly within his rights to make this decision but I happen to think it wasn’t the wisest.

I didn’t claim you said the bishop was outside his authority. I claimed you said the bishop made the wrong decision. I got that impression from your statement:

But I’m not a bishop and I won’t have to answer for this scandal…the bishop will be judged for his actions.

Most of the pro arguments have boiled down to ‘homosexuality is not sinful’

I never made that statement.

Perhaps you can give me a sound argument that I can consider but gauging by your other posts and the types of causes you champion here at CAF I suspect you’ll just attack.

Technically I don’t have to give any argument. The common practice of the Church is to grant funeral Masses for her deceased children. The burden rests with those who wish to depart from the common practice. That’s why the Bishop had to intervene, the pastor did not make an adequate case to deny a funeral Mass.

And I don’t “champion” any causes. I just attempt to provide the practical view of issues from the point of view of someone who has to actually deal with the consequences (intended and unintended) of decisions/programs/actions. That’s why I can safely say that the pastor in question made a huge mistake in not immediately contacting his Ordinary’s office. Denial of anything usually leads the denied to call the bishop’s office and/or put up a big stink. A pastor should never deny anything unless he’s sure it’ll stick…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’m just an old retired theology professor and that last time that I worked in a parish was 1990.

While I can appreciate the desire to comply with the law, one must also have the desire to do the highest good for the Church and for others, not just for oneself.

As my canon law professor, years ago, drilled into all of us: the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls (canon 1752).

I hope that Father logs in to check this and correct my errors.

Wow, I guess it’d be a million dollar prize to find an error in what you wrote. That was about as well as it could be put!

As I’ve said, I have not done parish work in many years. I’m a formator and novice master, not a pastor. THANK GOD.

That’s why you’re so kind and gentle! We parish priests can be an ornery bunch, lol…

 

[JReducation]

@ Br. JR

Thank you for the followup.

I wonder if you could comment on the priest’s initial response to hold a funeral service and not a Mass specifically? As someone pointed out weddings are sometimes celebrated without a Mass. Mine was. Given the fact that presumably a large number of the deceased friends are likely active homosexuals I see a bigger problem with the Eucharist being abused than my wife’s Protestant family members but my nose wasn’t out of joint when told we wouldn’t have a Mass.

Not sure who Father is you’re talking about.

M

If the congregants are Catholic, the priest should never assume that they cannot receive Holy Communion, unless there is a specific law in place that speaks to the situation. The priest must give the communicant Holy Communion.

In the case of this particular congregation, I can only speculate that the original thought may have been that those attending the funeral were not in communion with the Church. It’s a risky assumption. However, one must do the best with the information that one has available.

In the case of a wedding between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, it is not an assumption. It’s a fact. Half of the congregants are not in communion with the Church.

Once it goes to the bishop and he rules, there are no more assumptions. Neither the priest nor the bishop are morally responsible if someone receives unworthily. That is the moral responsibility of the communicant. The priest and the bishop act in good faith. If I abuse that good faith, it is I who am wrong, not the other person.

I would like to add, for everyone’s benefit, the fact that there is a moral hierarchy. Not all sins are equally grave. If we examine the Decalogue, sex does not enter the hierarchy until the 6th commandment. If we examine the Beatitudes, purity is not addressed until the 6th beatitude.

We have to be very careful not to place all sin on the same rung on the ladder. That’s how we end up making unjust judgment calls against people.

Also, the person is objectively culpable. No one can say whether the person is subjectively culpable. We can only judge what we see. The human heart, mind and conscience are as I tell my theology students, “a secret corridor through which only God has the right to walk.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

As my canon law professor, years ago, drilled into all of us: the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls (canon 1752).

Our St. Maximilian Kolbe, the day that he was informed that the Nazis were going to raid the friary, ordered the friars to get rid of their habits and to run. One friar, who was filled with hatred toward the Nazis, knelt to get Brother Max’s blessing, before he departed. He confessed his anger and hatred to Brother Max and said, “What should I do?” Brother Max did not hesitate. He quickly responded, “Forget not love.”

Wow, I guess it’d be a million dollar prize to find an error in what you wrote. That was about as well as it could be put!

Thank you for your kindness.

That’s why you’re so kind and gentle! We parish priests can be an ornery bunch, lol…

I served in three parishes, two in the missions and one in the USA. When I was told that I was going to teach instead of parish work, I then knew how a soul must feel as it is being liberated from purgatory.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF