Gay Man's Catholic Funeral Cancelled then allowed

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

10news.com/news/28376902/detail.html

A funeral service for a gay parishioner that was initially canceled by a Catholic church will be allowed to take place, according to the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego.
Local businessman and devout Catholic John Sanfilippo died last week after struggling with emphysema. Friends said Sanfilippo planned for the funeral mass to be held at Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church in Little Italy, where Sanfilippo had attended for decades. Friends said he even left the church a large sum of money in his will.

What law or rules would allow for the cancellation of a Gay man’s funeral?
My Mother was not Catholic, but a Catholic Priest did come and give a blessing of some type at her funeral.

 

[MtnDwellar]

The Church denies funeral rites to the following people, unless they gave some signs of repentance before death:

notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful (cf. Canon 1184.1.1–3).

 

[markomalley]

10news.com/news/28376902/detail.html

What law or rules would allow for the cancellation of a Gay man’s funeral?
My Mother was not Catholic, but a Catholic Priest did come and give a blessing of some type at her funeral.

As has been reported, Canon 1184 covers who must be denied an Ecclesiastical Funeral.

As much as my knuckles drag (I am a knuckle-dragging right winger), I would be extremely reticent to not allow a Catholic funeral for anybody. If the Church hierarchy did not have the guts to publicly reprove the man during life, denying him funeral rites after he dies is clearly a cowardly move.

He openly lived with a homosexual partner for 28 years. That is undoubtedly grave matter. Did his bishop or his pastor meet with him and instruct him to not present himself for communion? Were extraordinary ministers of holy communion at his parish instructed to deny him communion per Canon 915 if he presented himself? Was he subjected to any kind of ecclesiastical censure at all while alive?

Per the news article:Friends said Sanfilippo planned for the funeral mass to be held at Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church in Little Italy, where Sanfilippo had attended for decades. Friends said he even left the church a large sum of money in his will.
Did anybody bother to try to correct his behavior during life? That wasn’t very pastoral of them if they didn’t, was it? And then the thought of denying him a funeral?

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Funerals, as often as not, can rapidly develop into political rallies. We should all remember the funeral of Edward Kennedy. While he was, in my view, appropriately given a funeral, this funeral rapidly descended into a political rally that gave the appearance of a Church endorsement of his political point of view. In my opinion, the Church and her shepherds must be ever-vigilant to assure that such a thing does not happen. An ecclesiastical funeral is intended to call upon God’s mercy upon the deceased, not as a rally for whatever movement the deceased supported.

With the politicization of homosexual rights recently (see Prop 8 in California or the recent action in NY), a funeral for a high profile homosexual could easily develop into a political event. If I was that pastor or that bishop, I would ensure, from the family of the deceased, that this would not happen in this case. No eulogies (eulogies are not supposed to happen at Catholic funerals). Only invited family and friends to attend. Strict observance of the discipline of communion. And the homily would not even address the individual, but strictly address God’s mercy. And no media. No cameras. No recordings. And black vestments…or, at a minimum, violet (not white, which would represent the deceased’s virtue and would be a celebration)

But those restrictions are hardly the same as denying an ecclesiastical funeral.

 

[cargau]

As has been reported, Canon 1184 covers who must be denied an Ecclesiastical Funeral.

Were extraordinary ministers of holy communion at his parish instructed to deny him communion per

And black vestments…or, at a minimum, violet (not white, which would represent the deceased’s virtue and would be a celebration)

But those restrictions are hardly the same as denying an ecclesiastical funeral.

Extraordinary Ministers are never to deny Communion. That is the responsibility of the Bishop,Pastor or the Celebrant. Can you imagine going to Communion only to find that a EMHC decided you were not “good” enough to receive the Lord. Talk about scandal!

Black or even purple vestments are not appropriate for funerals. We are all sinners and this man may have received absolution before he died. Only God knows his heart and only God can judge. Wearing black sends a message that his soul has been judged by us mortals…

On one hand, I cannot find justification for living an openly gay lifestyle. I am so disappointed in legislators who are performing social experiments that are doomed to fail such as Andrew Cuomo (a Catholic). On the other hand, I trust completely on the mercy of God to deliver us from our sin.

 

[markomalley]

Extraordinary Ministers are never to deny Communion. That is the responsibility of the Bishop,Pastor or the Celebrant. Can you imagine going to Communion only to find that a EMHC decided you were not “good” enough to receive the Lord. Talk about scandal!

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Raymond Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, has this to say:

First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin

Read the entire discourse,The Discipline Regarding the Denial of HolyCommunion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin (2007), here.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say:4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

    (snip)    

    6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in  which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "**the minister [NB: he does NOT distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary minister] of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it**"  (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy  Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is **not **a sanction or a penalty. **Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment** on the person’s  subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

One other note: the specific context of this is in regards to pro-abortion politicians; however, the text cited referred to divorced and remarried individuals. From this, it is clear that the situation would apply to any situation of manifest (public) sin.

Read the rest of this: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles (2004)

Dr Edward Peters, Referendarius of the Apostolic Signatura and professor of Canon Law, has a whole compilation of writings on the subject.

The scandal does NOT come when communion is denied the person who is obstinately in a state of manifest sin. The scandal comes when that person is allowed to communicate. Because that serves as an implicit endorsement of the way that person acts.

Consider Mrs. Pelosi being given communion during the Papal Mass in Washington DC a few years ago. This created a scandal due to her open promotion of pro-abortion and pro-homosexual laws. The scandal among the faithful and the public at large was “well, maybe the Church isn’t really as concerned about abortion as they claim. After all, they gave communion to a whole bunch of pro-choice politicians, even Nancy Pelosi.”

To reiterate, though, I am not suggesting that an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion take it upon him or herself to discern whether a person is in a state of mortal sin or not; rather, the pastor of souls (the parish pastor or the bishop) should, in the situation of a notorious sinner, attempt to correct the behavior privately, but if that behavior can’t be corrected, the pastor, for the sake of the sinner and to avoid scandal (actions that will lead others into sin), must go the next step: to deny admittance to Holy Communion…and to instruct ministers of Holy Communion, both ordinary and extraordinary, to not distribute it if requested.

Black or even purple vestments are not appropriate for funerals. We are all sinners and this man may have received absolution before he died. Only God knows his heart and only God can judge. Wearing black sends a message that his soul has been judged by us mortals…

346.e. Besides violet, white or black vestments may be worn at funeral services and at other Offices and Masses for the Dead in the dioceses of the United States of America.

Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, General Instruction of the Roman Missal​

It should be noted in the Italian translation of the GIRM, black is the only color to be used: e) Il colore nero si può usare*,** dove è prassi consueta, nelle Messe per i defunti.*

 

[cargau]

The scandal does NOT come when communion is denied the person who is obstinately in a state of manifest sin. The scandal comes when that person is allowed to communicate. Because that serves as an implicit endorsement of the way that person acts.

Consider Mrs. Pelosi being given communion during the Papal Mass in Washington DC a few years ago. This created a scandal due to her open promotion of pro-abortion and pro-homosexual laws. The scandal among the faithful and the public at large was “well, maybe the Church isn’t really as concerned about abortion as they claim. After all, they gave communion to a whole bunch of pro-choice politicians, even Nancy Pelosi.”

To reiterate, though, I am not suggesting that an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion take it upon him or herself to discern whether a person is in a state of mortal sin or not; rather, the pastor of souls (the parish pastor or the bishop) should, in the situation of a notorious sinner, attempt to correct the behavior privately, but if that behavior can’t be corrected, the pastor, for the sake of the sinner and to avoid scandal (actions that will lead others into sin), must go the next step: to deny admittance to Holy Communion…and to instruct ministers of Holy Communion, both ordinary and extraordinary, to not distribute it if requested.

346.e. Besides violet, white or black vestments may be worn at funeral services and at other Offices and Masses for the Dead in the dioceses of the United States of America.

FONT=Georgia

I think we are on the same page. I just think it would be very dangerous to give an EMHC who has about three hours of training the authority to decide who is eligible to receive holy communion. If he has been directed by the proper authority to deny communion, then by all means he or she should do so.

I didn’t realize that black and purple could be worn at funerals. Thanks for clearing that up. I still think that doing so is tantamount to a form of human censure on his soul. That strikes me as arrogant, presumptuous and playing God.
​

​

 

[tm30]

This is the key quote from the interview:

"All of a sudden, they change their mind and say, ‘Well, you know, we may still allow the funeral to be here.’ Why? Because they got caught in the process of denying equal rights to people?" asked Neil Thomas, a friend and customer of Sanfilippo.

Do you see the Pandora’s box being opened by the San Diego Archidiocese? If a Catholic funeral ends up framed as an equal rights issue, the next stop is challenging the Church on her refusal to perform homosexual marriages as a matter of civil rights. Subsidiaries have already fallen under the sword of atheistic secularism (Catholic Charities, Knights of Columbus, Catholic business owners). The momentum of public opinion is very strongly in favor of the homosexual political agenda, so any sign of weakness in the Church will be exploited.

Thus, the idea that this is an “equal rights” response needs to be rejected vociferously by the San Diego Church.

Still, the Church in San Diego invited this by looking the other way for decades.

 

[markomalley]

I think we are on the same page. I just think it would be very dangerous to give an EMHC who has about three hours of training the authority to decide who is eligible to receive holy communion. If he has been directed by the proper authority to deny communion, then by all means he or she should do so.

I think that a huge amount of catechesis is needed on Canon 915, not just for EMHCs, but for clergy and the public at large. Having said that, I would not want to the EMHC who had Nancy Pelosi in his communion line.

Your initial reaction is the one that would be protrayed in the media and by the vast majority of Catholics. “Who the **** does this EMHC think he is, denying communion???”

I didn’t realize that black and purple could be worn at funerals. Thanks for clearing that up. I still think that doing so is tantamount to a form of human censure on his soul. That strikes me as arrogant, presumptuous and playing God.

There is a meaning to everything that is seen, heard, and done during the Mass.

Baltimore Catechism Q362 gives a good synopsis behind the meaning of the various colors:

(g) The colors of the outer vestments worn during Mass are: white, which signifies purity of soul and holiness, red, which signifies the shedding of blood and burning love; green, which signifies hope; violet, which signifies penance; black, which signifies mourning; rose, which signifies joy in the midst of penance; and gold, which is used on solemn occasions in place of white, red, or green vestments.
The use of black, which is the traditional color (pre-1969) for Masses for the dead & funerals, symbolizes mourning. We mourn for the dead and for the family and loved ones left behind and plead God’s mercy upon his soul. We celebrate a funeral Mass for his soul’s repose and to help minimize his time in Purgatory.

Since, post-1969, Black vestments are no longer in common use (for some reason unbeknownst to me), violet is the closest to that color, symbolically.

White, on the other hand, would represent celebration and would almost assert that the person for whom we celebrate the funeral Mass was without any attachment to sin and would, in essence, make the assertion that the person had no need of purgatory but was immediately in the beatific vision. That, to me, is horribly presumptuous. If that is the case, why bother having a funeral Mass for the person?

 

[SouthCatholic]

This is the key quote from the interview:

Do you see the Pandora’s box being opened by the San Diego Archidiocese? If a Catholic funeral ends up framed as an equal rights issue, the next stop is challenging the Church on her refusal to perform homosexual marriages as a matter of civil rights. Subsidiaries have already fallen under the sword of atheistic secularism (Catholic Charities, Knights of Columbus, Catholic business owners). The momentum of public opinion is very strongly in favor of the homosexual political agenda, so any sign of weakness in the Church will be exploited.

Thus, the idea that this is an “equal rights” response needs to be rejected vociferously by the San Diego Church.

Still, the Church in San Diego invited this by looking the other way for decades.

The Church is also inviting further comment by reversing it’s original decision. They should have stuck with the decision AND refused the money from his Will.