Diocese of Rome Refuses Catholic Funeral for Catholic Right-to-Die Activist

[WanderAimlessly]

**Diocese of Rome Refuses Catholic Funeral for Catholic Right-to-Die Activist

** ROME, January 3, 2007 (CWNews.com/LifeSiteNews.com) - The Rome diocese has declined to allow a Catholic funeral for Piergiorgio Welby, the Italian activist who died on December 21 after his doctor disconnected his respirator.

The Rome diocese explained that during his life, Welby had “placed himself at odds with Church doctrine” by his outspoken advocacy of assisted suicide. Having been a leading advocate of the “right to die,” Welby-- who suffered from muscular dystrophy-- became the center of a heated public debate on that issue when he asked his doctors to remove the respirator that was keeping him alive.

Full Story

 

[Lrning]

Interesting. Under what circumstances can the Church deny a funeral? I think about this semi-often because my sister (Catholic baptism through Confirmation) hasn’t stepped foot in a Church in over 15 years. It seems that Welby was denied a funeral because he was so outspoken in his disagreement with the Church. But what if he repented near the end? As a dissenter, was he still active and participating in Church? Was he allowed to receive the Eucharist? This story disturbs me.

 

[bones_IV]

Interesting. Under what circumstances can the Church deny a funeral? I think about this semi-often because my sister (Catholic baptism through Confirmation) hasn’t stepped foot in a Church in over 15 years. It seems that Welby was denied a funeral because he was so outspoken in his disagreement with the Church. But what if he repented near the end? As a dissenter, was he still active and participating in Church? Was he allowed to receive the Eucharist? This story disturbs me.

Maybe this will teach the pro-abortionists not to mess w/ us.

 

[Eileen_T]

Interesting. Under what circumstances can the Church deny a funeral? I think about this semi-often because my sister (Catholic baptism through Confirmation) hasn’t stepped foot in a Church in over 15 years. It seems that Welby was denied a funeral because he was so outspoken in his disagreement with the Church.

I think this incurs automatic excommunication.

But what if he repented near the end?

If he repented, the priest hearing his confession would have said so, and he would have received a Catholic funeral.

As a dissenter, was he still active and participating in Church? Was he allowed to receive the Eucharist?

As above, he was in a state of excommunication.

This story disturbs me.

Being a Catholic is not just a matter of calling youself one. It requires acceptance of dogma and adhrence to the Teachings of Christ and the Magisterium wo received His Authority.

I, too, am disturbed. I have children and close family members and friends who have rejected Church Teaching because it does not suit them. They have consciously chosen to leave the Church, yet they persist in the belief that they will not go to Hell because “I’m a good person. I don’t steal or kill people (except maybe through contraception!).” etc…etc…etc…

Unfortunately they are breaking several of God’s Commandments. They are putting other things in a higher place than God (No. 1); they don’t keep any particular day Holy, let alone the Sabbath (No. 2)

They don’t think fornication or adultery are all that bad… “Surely God wouldn’t expect me to be celibate for the rest of my life?”

They are living for themselves and their desires and pleasures, as if God does not exist. And they don’t really care whether He exists or not.

I LOVE these people! Yeah, it disturbs me. A LOT!!! Guess what? I spend a lot of my free time praying for them ( and even while I am working).

I pray for the Holy Souls in Purgatory, in the expectation that when they enter Heaven, they will return the favour, and being made righteous, their prayers will be more powerful than mine.

 

[Lrning]

If he repented, the priest hearing his confession would have said so, and he would have received a Catholic funeral.

Wouldn’t that be breaking the seal of the Confessional? And what if he repented, but wasn’t able to confess?

Was he formally excommunicated? Because if so, the Sacrament of Reconciliation wouldn’t have been available to him. I don’t know anything about this man, in fact, this story brings up more questions for me than it answers.

It kind of reminds me of the many outspoken dissenting politicians. If they are allowed to continue receiving the Eucharist, can they then be denied a Catholic funeral upon their death?

 

[SOUNDTRUTH]

The mountain climbers swing loose from the mountain and are now all hanging on one rope. The single rope can’t hold all their weight much longer. However, if the person at the bottom of the rope cuts himself free, the rope will not break, and at least two people will still be alive.

Should we exclude the third person right to die, or is it better for all three people to die instead ?

 

[Lrning]

The mountain climbers swing loose from the mountain and are now all hanging on one rope. The single rope can’t hold all their weight much longer. However, if the person at the bottom of the rope cuts himself free, the rope will not break, and at least two people will still be alive.

Should we exclude the third person right to die, or is it better for all three people to die instead ?

I don’t think this is the same as the “right to die” movement. The third climber isn’t choosing to die, he/she is choosing to save others. I believe I have the right (even according to orthodox Catholic theology) to jump in front of my children to shield them from a gunman as he shoots. Perhaps I might die, but my death would not be the intended result. I think I still have this right, even if my death is almost certain.

 

[SOUNDTRUTH]

I don’t think this is the same as the “right to die” movement. The third climber isn’t choosing to die, he/she is choosing to save others. I believe I have the right (even according to orthodox Catholic theology) to jump in front of my children to shield them from a gunman as he shoots. Perhaps I might die, but my death would not be the intended result. I think I still have this right, even if my death is almost certain.

So what you are saying is that one is allowed to end ones life, and one is not allowed to ends ones life.

You are saying that it all depends upon the situation, and that ending ones life is not the primary subject, but instead it is placed in the second position of importance ?

 

[chicago]

So what you are saying is that one is allowed to end ones life, and one is not allowed to ends ones life.

You are saying that it all depends upon the situation, and that ending ones life is not the primary subject, but instead it is placed in the second position of importance ?

It’s basically the principle of double effect.

In his encyclical letter The Gospel of Life Pope John Paul II addressed just this concept:

Certainly the life of the body in its earthly state is not an absolute good for the believer, especially as he may be asked to give up his life for a greater good. As Jesus says: “Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mk 8:35). The New Testament gives many different examples of this. Jesus does not hesitate to sacrifice himself and he freely makes of his life an offering to the Father (cf. Jn 10:17) and to those who belong to him (cf. Jn 10:15). The death of John the Baptist, precursor of the Saviour, also testifies that earthly existence is not an absolute good; what is more important is remaining faithful to the word of the Lord even at the risk of one’s life (cf. Mk 6:17-29). Stephen, losing his earthly life because of his faithful witness to the Lord’s Resurrection, follows in the Master’s footsteps and meets those who are stoning him with words of forgiveness (cf. Acts 7:59-60), thus becoming the first of a countless host of martyrs whom the Church has venerated since the very beginning.

No one, however, can arbitrarily choose whether to live or die; the absolute master of such a decision is the Creator alone, in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

from EV #47

 

[goofyjim]

Does this mean we will all have to stay alive on machines for an indefinite period in order to get a Catholic burial? I for one do not want that. It becomes costly for the living and can sometimes be painful for the dying. If the respirator was the only thing keeping him alive I do not feel that is the same as assisted suicide.

 

[Karin]

Does this mean we will all have to stay alive on machines for an indefinite period in order to get a Catholic burial? I for one do not want that. It becomes costly for the living and can sometimes be painful for the dying. If the respirator was the only thing keeping him alive I do not feel that is the same as assisted suicide.

We Are Not Required To Sustain Life By Avoiding Death At All Costs, Since Life Is Not An Absolute Good. Usually of greatest concern to a devout Catholic is whether a particular choice to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging treatment constitutes neglect if death follows. Must one always avoid death? When one is not seeking death out of a belief that rejects life, then the answer is no. “If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for its sake.]”["][12]]("http://www.macathconf.org/6Teachings.htm#12) Thus in certain cases, the avoidance of death may conflict with other legitimate values, such as the martyr’s desire to remain faithful even if by doing so, death is imposed. More to the point, allowing death to come naturally, rather than fighting it with aggressively burdensome measures, may serve a value more important than “securing a precarious and painful prolongation of life” by “mak[ing] way for a serene and Christian acceptance of death which is inherent in life.”["][13] The key question to ask in an examination of conscience is: “Am I making this non-treatment decision because I think life is no longer a good and should cease, or am I doing it in spite of the possibility of death to serve a legitimately serious purpose?” Rejecting treatment because it is too burdensome, risky, ineffective, or disproportionate to the expected outcome is not neglect. One’s duty to care in such circumstances shifts from avoiding death to providing comfort and hope as death approaches.
macathconf.org/6Teachings.htm

 

[Cristiano]

Piergiorgio Welby did not consider himself a Catholic, he simply agreed to a Catholic funeral upon request of his wife who claims to be a devout catholic. The whole thing is just another bunch of BS from the “Partito Radicale” the same political party that spearheaded to national referendums on divorce, abortion, and now legal recognition of homosexual couples. This is the same political party that now chides the Church for lack of respect toward human life by denying this funeral. Piergiorgio Welby stuck with the “Partito Radicale” for all these years and made his public final choice with clear knowledge that he was going against the fundamentals teaching of the Church. That final full consent is what kept him away from the Church.