"Nazi war criminal's funeral thwarted by protesters in Italy"

[gracepoole]

They’re not lies if you believe them to be true. If I say that we never landed on the moon, and I believe that to be true, that doesn’t make me a liar. Sure, I may be going against the evidence presented or even common sense, but I wouldn’t be committing the sin of lying.

I don’t know enough about this man’s life or what he did and did not do, but according to all reports, he repented of his sins, was a faithful Catholic during his last years, and was given the Sacrament of Extreme Unction before dying. To me it sounds like he should have been allowed a Catholic burial. It also sounds like it was never meant to be a public burial, but rather a private one, but when the media got wind of it, all that flew out the door.

First, the Archdiocese of Rome said that a private home funeral was acceptable. Second, where are folks getting the idea that Priebke was a faithful Catholic?

Today’s debate boils down to this: Given that Priebke apparently identified himself as a Catholic, though there’s little evidence he ever practiced the faith, should a funeral for him be celebrated in a Catholic church?

 

[larsont7]

First, the Archdiocese of Rome said that a private home funeral was acceptable. Second, where are folks getting the idea that Priebke was a faithful Catholic?

Yeah, I started looking around some more and keep finding conflicting reports on this guy, so it’s hard to know which one to believe. Apparently ABCNews had a story saying that he repented and confessed all his sins, but it looks like they pulled the story (or I can’t find it anyway). My initial post saying he deserved a Catholic burial was conditional on him confessing and repenting of his sins before death. If that is not the case, then this should not have been allowed.

 

[manualman]

I don’t know enough about this man’s life or what he did and did not do, but according to all reports, he repented of his sins, was a faithful Catholic during his last years, and was given the Sacrament of Extreme Unction before dying. To me it sounds like he should have been allowed a Catholic burial.

The report quoted above doesn’t sound like that to me. On the surface, and I agree we don’t have all the facts, it sounds like he went shopping for a priest who would tell him that his carrying out of Nazi orders wasn’t a sin at all, just the inevitable vagaries of war. I’m not sure that counts as “repentance.” In short, it’s a tough call so why don’t we just trust that those who made the decision knew more than us and did the right thing?

 

[Lormar]

Wow! Some of you are heartless. How could any one possibly know what passed between this man and God during his final moments?

Is your mercy only a politically correct mercy?

Pray for the man’s soul.

 

[gracepoole]

Wow! Some of you are heartless. How could any one possibly know what passed between this man and God during his final moments?

Is your mercy only a politically correct mercy?

Pray for the man’s soul.

Wow! Perhaps you need to review Canon law, starting with the passage included here.

 

[Lormar]

Wow! Perhaps you need to review Canon law, starting with the passage included here.

That surprising, Grace. I thought from all of your posts here that you would be more of a spirit of the law person rather than a letter of the law.

 

[saveusfromhell]

gracepool if two gay people living in sin who denied church teaching, or a hetrosexual couple living in sin who denied church teaching died, would you advocate that they shouldn’t receive a church burial?

 

[gracepoole]

gracepool if two gay people living in sin who denied church teaching, or a hetrosexual couple living in sin who denied church teaching died, would you advocate that they shouldn’t receive a church burial?

Are they capable of bringing upon the Church the sort of scandal that this man brought? I doubt it. But had Harvey Milk requested a Catholic funeral, I may have been inclined to respond as I’ve done here.

 

[gracepoole]

That surprising, Grace. I thought from all of your posts here that you would be more of a spirit of the law person rather than a letter of the law.

I’m glad to know that I can still surprise.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Are they capable of bringing upon the Church the sort of scandal that this man brought? I doubt it. But had Harvey Milk requested a Catholic funeral, I may have been inclined to respond as I’ve done here.

I think you don’t understand scandal in the terms your using here + I never asked about Harvey milk and inclined?
as others have pointed out your posts on other threads and here seem to differ, it seems like double standards

 

[gracepoole]

I think you don’t understand scandal in the terms your using here + I never asked about Harvey milk and inclined?
as others have pointed out your posts on other threads and here seem to differ it would seem like double standards

Really? Enlighten me.

And of course you didn’t ask about Harvey Milk. It was an analogy. Had Milk been Catholic, confessed his sins, and then garnered widespread public attention for promoting anti-Catholic positions until his death, he would have invited scandal upon the Church.

Finally, for those who live by the letter of the law rather than its spirit, I should think invocation of Canon law would be applauded rather than viewed suspiciously. It might be amusing to accuse me of having a double standard, but it does nothing to advance the conversation.

 

[Brendan]

Lies are not sins? Who would ever claim that his views of the Holocaust are anything but a pack of lies?

An untruth is not necessarily a lie. It would depend on an intent to deceive. If the person honestly believed that the Holocaust did not happen, then there was no lie.

If the person believed that the Holocaust DID happen, but was intending to deceive others into believing that it did not, that would be sinful.

I do not see how any of us can make a judgment as to which category this person fell into.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Really? Enlighten me.

And of course you didn’t ask about Harvey Milk. It was an analogy. Had Milk been Catholic, confessed his sins, and then garnered widespread public attention for promoting anti-Catholic positions until his death, he would have invited scandal upon the Church.

Finally, for those who live by the letter of the law rather than its spirit, I should think invocation of Canon law would be applauded rather than viewed suspiciously. It might be amusing to accuse me of having a double standard, but it does nothing to advance the conversation.

as those none of your post.
so ill ask again should a gay or hetrosexual living in sin be denied a church funeral from the letter of the law your quoting

 

[gracepoole]

An untruth is not necessarily a lie. It would depend on an intent to deceive. If the person honestly believed that the Holocaust did not happen, then there was no lie.

If the person believed that the Holocaust DID happen, but was intending to deceive others into believing that it did not, that would be sinful.

I do not see how any of us can make a judgment as to which category this person fell into.

Priebke admitted his participation in crimes against humanity during the Holocaust. There is no question about this. What he denied was responsibility for his actions. He also claimed that gas chambers were not used to murder victims.

Priebke never expressed public remorse, insisting he was following orders, and after his death, his lawyer released a seven-page testament in which the former SS official essentially denied the Holocaust, claiming that alleged crematoria in Nazi concentration camps were actually large kitchens for feeding inmates.

Denying methods is a form of Holocaust denial (this is not my view but the view of many international communities which have outlawed Holocaust denial and the view of many scholars like Deborah Lipstadt). Priebke did not claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen – he intended to distance himself from ownership of his own genocidal actions. He intended to exonerate himself of crimes he knew were egregious and sinful.

 

[gracepoole]

as those none of your post.
so ill ask again should a gay or hetrosexual living in sin be denied a church funeral for bringing scandal

First, I don’t understand the portion in bold above. Second, as acknowledged by the Vatican itself, this is a virtually unprecedented decision. That should tell us something about the scope of this individual’s state. None of us can say whether an individual living in sin has repented before death and therefore merits a funeral. But Priebke seems to have located an authority who absolved him of his sins because he believed there were no sins present to begin with. That’s not a valid absolution. Priebke went on to deny basic truths of the Holocaust as well as his own responsibility, which would seem to invalidate any absolution, as well.

Finally, it’s mildly bizarre that people are arguing on behalf of this individual as though he’s just another sinner or as though we’re all entitled to a Catholic funeral, no matter what our sins. I sure hope folks would be this incensed if an abortion practitioner who 1) found an authority to offer absolution because he hadn’t really sinned in the authority’s view, and 2) denied responsibility for his actions because someone told him to perform abortions, and 3) then denied the scope and scale of abortions was denied a public Catholic funeral.

 

[saveusfromhell]

First, I don’t understand the portion in bold above. Second, as acknowledged by the Vatican itself, this is a virtually unprecedented decision. That should tell us something about the scope of this individual’s state. None of us can say whether an individual living in sin has repented before death and therefore merits a funeral. But Priebke seems to have located an authority who absolved him of his sins because he believed there were no sins present to begin with. That’s not a valid absolution. Priebke went on to deny basic truths of the Holocaust as well as his own responsibility, which would seem to invalidate any absolution, as well.

Finally, it’s mildly bizarre that people are arguing on behalf of this individual as though he’s just another sinner or as though we’re all entitled to a Catholic funeral, no matter what our sins. I sure hope folks would be this incensed if an abortion practitioner who 1) found an authority to offer absolution because he hadn’t really sinned in the authority’s view, and 2) denied responsibility for his actions because someone told him to perform abortions, and 3) then denied the scope and scale of abortions was denied a public Catholic funeral.

no i’m simple condemning nobody period, i’m going to let God judge. you can condemn abortionts Nazis etc all you want, I just don’t know who obtained a perfect contrition before dying.

 

[gracepoole]

no i’m simple condemning nobody period, i’m going to let God judge. you can condemn abortionts Nazis etc all you want:shrug:

Yup, that’s me – I like to unfairly condemn people. I thought you were familiar with my posts elsewhere. How about this? We actually trust that the Archdiocese of Rome knows what it’s doing and made the right call here.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Yup, that’s me – I like to unfairly condemn people. I thought you were familiar with my posts elsewhere. How about this? We actually trust that the Archdiocese of Rome knows what it’s doing and made the right call here.

again I don’t know if they did or not i’ll let God decide but i hope and pray that he and many like him did repent.

 

[gracepoole]

again I don’t know if they did or not i’ll let God decide but i hope that he and many like him did repent.

Let’s go over this again:

1. The Church did not deny Priebke prayers for the dead. It merely mandated that the funeral be handled discreetly.
2. The funeral did not have to take place in Italy, where his crimes took place (some community members still remember these events and had family members who were victimized by Priebke’s atrocities).
3. His lawyer did not have to request that the funeral take place in Italy on the exact date of the 70th anniversary of the deportation of Roman Jews.

I’m struggling to see anything here that would merit criticism of the Archdiocese of Rome’s decision.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Let’s go over this again:

1. The Church did not deny Priebke prayers for the dead. It merely mandated that the funeral be handled discreetly.
2. The funeral did not have to take place in Italy, where his crimes took place (some community members still remember these events and had family members who were victimized by Priebke’s atrocities).
3. His lawyer did not have to request that the funeral take place in Italy on the exact date of the 70th anniversary of the deportation of Roman Jews.

I’m struggling to see anything here that would merit criticism of the Archdiocese of Rome’s decision.

again its your double standards I commented upon as noticed by others as well. there is no sinner greater then me.