No communion or funerals for pro-abortion politicians: Burke [CN-USA]

[Ender]

I am not sure why this discussion of Public Penance for the late senstor is going on.

The discussion continues because it is still not clear whether or not grave public sin requires public penance. Your citation from the 24th session of the Council of Trent says that public penance is required … unless the bishop commutes it to a private penance. The citation I gave from the Catechism of Trent said simply that it was required and did not mention the possibility of commutation and in fact seemed to rule out the possibility:* "But with regard to public sinners, as we have already said, they were **never *absolved until they had performed public penance." Of course, there could be another section where the possibility of commutation is mentioned, but I have not found it.

The General Rules for Administering Penance of the 1964 version of the Rituale Romanum says:

*The priest must take great pains to decide in which instances absolution should be given, denied, or deferred, lest he absolve such as are indisposed for this benefit–persons, for example, who … To this class belong also persons who have given public scandal, unless they make public satisfaction and remove the scandal. *

Again, this makes no provision for commuting the requirement for public penance.

I don’t think your second citation is relevant as it does not specifically pertain to public sins. Clearly the requirements of the sacrament have changed from public to private penance except, it would seem, for grave public sins. I wish your citations did resolve the issue but I don’t believe they do.

Ender

 

[Godfollower]

I think the problem here is confusion in some parts about the difference between a sacrament and a sacramental. This thread concerns provision of Communion (though no one is actually discussing that part) and funerals to pro-choice politicians. It almost immediately went to a more specific discussion of whether Cardinal O’Malley should have permitted a Catholic funeral for Sen. Edward Kennedy.

That’s a question concerning the provision of a sacramental – an ecclesiastical funeral – for Sen. Kennedy. The only question concerning the provision of such a sacramental is what canon law says about it. Canon 1184, the governing canon, provides:

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.

CIC 1983, Canon 1184.

With respect to Sen. Kennedy, who publicly supported abortion-rights legislation consistently through most of his career, the language is basically “Unless he gave some signs of repentance before death, he must be deprived of an ecclesiastical funeral as a manifest sinner who cannot be granted an ecclesiastical funeral without public scandal of the faithful. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.”

Canonists basically agree that the “exception” language (“Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death”) does not even require that a sacrament of any kind occur. All that is necessary is “some signs of repentance” – merely asking for a priest is enough, even if the priest never gets there in time and no sacrament is even begun, let alone completed. Accordingly, Cardinal O’Malley was justified in apparently concluding that Sen. Kennedy had given “some signs” of repentance before death. That means that he can’t deny an ecclesiastical funeral to Sen. Kennedy. And, because his judgment “must be followed,” we should not be criticizing him.

Now, as to the argument that Sen. Kennedy didn’t give a “public” penance before death and therefore he was allegedly never absolved, that’s got nothing to do with the sacramental of an ecclesiastical funeral. Rather, it’s an argument that he did not validly receive the Sacrament of Penance (and therefore, presumably, is condemned).

That argument – while many people apparently are willing to advance it quite passionately – is both beyond the scope of this thread and inappropriate, because we can never know whether a particular person is condemned to Hell or not. We also can never know whether a particular instance of a particular sacrament was valid or not, particularly when it involves the internal forum of conscience in the context of a dying man. But, most importantly as to this thread, Canon 1184 does not say “Unless they successfully received a valid absolution in the Sacrament of Penance before death . . . .” No sacrament is required at all.

Did he give “some signs of repentance before death?” I think so. But, whether or not I’m right, what matters is, Cardinal O’Malley thinks so. And that ends the matter under canon law.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Everything you said here is great except for the part I have bolded.

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.

---

Denial of ecclesiastical funerals is the judgment call of the local archbishop. The guidelines for that judgment call is given in Canon 1184 §1. “Some signs of repentance before death” can waive the ordinary prohibition of ecclesiastical funerals for those “manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful”. This is at the discretion of the local ordinary.

Archbishop Raymond Burke, as prefect of the Vatican Apostolic Signatura (which I have heard is comparable to a Supreme Court), has a canon law opinion which should weigh heavily when local ordinaries are seeking understanding of canon law.

As I understand it, the judgment call is still that of the archbishop of the diocese.

It is actually the judgment call of the local bishop. The bishop of the diocese that the funeral is to take place.

 

[Ender]

That’s a question concerning the provision of a sacramental – an ecclesiastical funeral – for Sen. Kennedy. The only question concerning the provision of such a sacramental is what canon law says about it.

This is one point where we disagree. Canon law is not the only place where the Church discusses the issues relevant to funerals.

Canonists basically agree that the “exception” language (“Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death”) does not even require that a sacrament of any kind occur.

“Canonists” would not seem to include the bishop most responsible for ensuring the proper interpretation of Canon law.

That means that he can’t deny an ecclesiastical funeral to Sen. Kennedy.

You have persistently argued that the Cardinal’s judgment must be followed, but if judgment is involved - and you claim that it is - then clearly the Cardinal could rule either way which means that he could have denied an ecclesiastical funeral.

And, because his judgment “must be followed,” we should not be criticizing him.

Whether or not he had the authority to make this decision is no reason whatever to refrain from criticizing it. No one argues that bishops don’t have the authority to move priests around as they see fit but I haven’t seen anyone suggest that they shouldn’t have been criticized when they moved pederast priests from one parish to another. Having authority and using it wisely are two different - and unrelated - issues.

Now, as to the argument that Sen. Kennedy didn’t give a “public” penance before death and therefore he was allegedly never absolved, that’s got nothing to do with the sacramental of an ecclesiastical funeral. Rather, it’s an argument that he did not validly receive the Sacrament of Penance (and therefore, presumably, is condemned). That argument – while many people apparently are willing to advance it quite passionately – is both beyond the scope of this thread and inappropriate, because we can never know whether a particular person is condemned to Hell or not.

The relevance here goes to the issue of scandal, which is a concern that relates to the appropriateness of ecumenical funerals. Here is an example from the Diocese of Kansas City: Ordinarily, those who are divorced and remarried may have Catholic funeral rites,(1) if public scandal will not ensue. The source of the scandal is different but it is the fact of scandal that determines whether or not a Catholic funeral is to be given, and in Kennedy’s case the scandal was obvious and severe.

Ender

 

[Deacon2006]

Archbishop Burke has written a very thoughtful article on this matter. He seems to be addressing the Comments of Father Roscia of S&L TV in Canada.

It always surprising to me how those who complain that faithful won’t jump ship with them are the ones that are dividing the church. Scratch the veneer of a progressive and you always get to hear foul language and smug thuggery. There is nothing humble in compromising on values to gain public acceptance.

PAX

insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6937&Itemid=121&ed=1

 

[otjm]

Waht seems to be missed by all is that Archbishop Burke took a forum that was totally and completely unnecessary. If he had a bone to pick with the Cardinal, that should ahve been picked in private. If he needed to address the issue with the bishops of the United States, that also should have been addressed in private.

The Archbishop has taken a hard stance more than once. That is not to suggest that there is not a need for it; and previoulsy, being a bishop in the US as opposed to head of the tribunal, that may have been more appropriate than his decision to go public this time. There is a time and a place to get into a spat; he has shown not only a lack of decorum of his office, but poor judgement in how he has decided to speak on the matter.

And he may well be one of the better scholars of Canon law; but that does not anoint him with infalllibility concerning any given aspect of the law. To wit: if the law says that the local ordinary has the judgement call, then unless there is a complete and thorough vetting of all aspects of the issue, it is plain on the face of it that the judgement call comes from Massachussetes, not Rome. Whether Burke intended to chastize the Cardinal, or rather whether he was responding to the Canadian incident, speaking in public is not the forum.

And there are still a number of people who think Christ was wrong forgiving the Good Thief.

If I have any beef with the Cardinal, it is not in having the funeral, but in how the funeral was conducted.

I kind of have my doubts that sacremental theology would deny forgiveness to someone on their deathbed because they did not call CNN in to witness their confession. It would appear that the issue of public repentance is aimed at someone who has a lifespan of something more than hours.