C
Cider
Guest
I’d like the Church to speak with one voice too. The difference it I don’t want to silence the voices that are consistent with Catholic doctrine. Burke’s is and as such should be supported.
No communion or funerals for pro-abortion politicians: Burke [CN-USA]
- Status
J
johnnykins
Guest
Like him or hate him, Sen. Kennedy was NOT an apostate, heretic or schismatic
also inapt
Well, this is where the Senator seems to possibly fit - and his local ordinary, whose judgment MUST BE FOLLOWED, made his decision. Agree or disagree with Cardinal O’Malley - but it was his call and NOT Archbishop Burke’s. I am all in favor of following Canon Law - and this time it squarely falls within Cardinal O’Malley’s jurisdiction. Frankly, those who agree with Archbishop Burke have every right to disagree with Cardinal O’Malley - but the Cardinal was well within his rights. NO ONE that I know of has lived any sort of life where he has NOT made an error in prudential judgment - and in the instant case it could be the Cardinal made such an error. It could also be the Archbishop did by questioning the Cardinal and thus creating another scandal.
IMHO the Cardinal should NOT have been publicly pilloried by the Archbishop as it is clear the Cardinal was acting within the scope of Canon Law in the exercise of his judgment. The Archbishop could have simply indicated his disagreement, but nonetheless supported the Cardinal - and that’s what he should have done. Otherwise change Canon Law to take away the discretion of the ordinary. As the highest judge of the Curia (apart from the Pope himself) I fear the Archbishop has undermined Canon Law - his supposed specialty. In doing so the Archbishop has created additional scandal.
J
johnnykins
Guest
The very nub of the problem is that there were issues that required the application of a prudential judgment by the local ordinary - in this case Cardinal O’Malley. By its very nature a prudential judgment tries to chose a course best suited to effect the goal of the Church - salvation. I have read Cardinal"O’Malley’s explanation for his decision. He certainly had reasons to support his decision - and the decision was his - NOT Archbishop Burke’s. IMHO Archbishop Burke was way out of line on this one. Not because he had a different opinion that may have been better suited to proclaim the message of Christ, but because he aggregated unto himself a role that was not his, created and perpetuated dissent and essentially failed in presenting both his arguments to those who disagreed and cleaved the unity of the Church in a difficult and potentially explosive situation - made worse by his comments. There are reasons Canon Law gives the decision to the local ordinary in such difficult situations: (i) someone has to decide and (ii) issues of subsidiarity and local pastoral concerns lead to the local ordinary as the appropriate decision maker.
Like it or not, life is filled with conflicting issues and difficult decisions that prudent and judicious people can come to different conclusions about. Cardinal O’Malley opted to go one way and Archbishop Burke would have chosen another. However, the decision was the Cardinal’s.
When my brother was married by a JOP, my parents struggled with whether to go or not. After much prayer and thought they decided to go. It was, and is, in my estimation the right thing to have done. Others, such as an aunt and uncle, chose otherwise. Only God will know who was right - perhaps both. Similarly, Cardinal O’Malley and Archbishop Burke disagreed in this case. I’m not opposed to disagreement - that’s part of it. What I abhor was Archbishop Burke arrogantly and improperly suggesting that Cardinal O’Malley was out of bounds - when His Eminence was clearly within his rights - and the only person out of bounds was the Archbishop.
S
sidonius
Guest
yes, of course, Cardinal O’Malley did what he thought was best. But thank God for Bishop Burke!
E
Ender
Guest
If you believe that Canon law should be followed then on what basis do you dispute the opinion of the Prefect who is charged with the responsibility of interpreting and teaching exactly what the law says?
Not according to Burke.
It appears to have been clear to the Prefect that the Cardinal’s decision was incorrect and that this was not an issue dependent solely on the discretion of ordinary.
If the Cardinal was wrong should the Archbishop still have supported him? Given that Burke flatly claimed that Kennedy should not have received an ecclesiastical funeral it seems pretty evident that he also thought O’Malley’s position was … wrong.
All of this is based on the belief that your understanding of the applicable laws is superior to that of the Archbishop. That may seem like a reasonable position to you but you can understand why I find it unlikely.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I see the nub of the problem to be with bishops who are unwilling to uphold the laws of the Church by claiming that they have the discretion to act as they see fit. It’s bad enough when the laity does it. The Kennedy funeral was no more a prudential choice than whether high profile, pro-abortion Catholics should receive communion. That we have a high number of prelates who are unwilling to act as they should is no reason to believe that they may therefore act as they choose.
This is not all that complicated. Someone who has publicly committed a grave sin must do public penance in order to be reconciled with the Church. Kennedy didn’t and therefore he was not absolved of his sins and should not have been given a funeral in the Church. There is nothing prudential about it.
Ender
R
rep140
Guest
Let’s face it, Cardinal Burke doesn’t have authority in any diocese, the local bishop does. During the business at Notre Dame someone wrote to the local Catholic paper asking why the bishop was quiet about this issue. The reply was that our bishop makes it a policy not to comment about issues outside our diocese.
Talk about authority. I live in the Northeast where all holy days of obligation apply. Our bishop has decided that we are in mortal sin if we don’t go to mass on Aug. 15 for instance. In most other parts of the country the bishops have decided otherwise. I would think an issue like this should carry more weight than publically disagreeing with what Cardinal O’Mally did.
Talk about authority. I live in the Northeast where all holy days of obligation apply. Our bishop has decided that we are in mortal sin if we don’t go to mass on Aug. 15 for instance. In most other parts of the country the bishops have decided otherwise. I would think an issue like this should carry more weight than publically disagreeing with what Cardinal O’Mally did.
J
johnnykins
Guest
WELLLLLL. let’s try reading this time, shall we:
“Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:”
I trust you understand the word “unless”. It means here that you don’t follow this Canon if it doesn’t apply.
“some signs of repentance” I trust you would agree that confession meets that definition. Several reports indicate that the Senator made a final confession and presumably received absolution. Of course, those reports could be in error or he may have made a sacrilegious confession, but on its face he died at least having given “some sign of repentance”
“must be denied…” well, since he gave “some sign…” and the Canon only applies “unless” he didn’t, then there is no mandate to deny him the funeral.
Now, even assuming he was a “manifest sinner” whose funeral would give scandal, the Canon is inapplicable because he “gave some sign of repentance” unless “any doubt occurs” If there is NO DOUBT, he is entitled to the funeral. If there is doubt, the Canon is quite clear that the local ordinary - here Cardinal O’Malley - decides. NOT THE ARCHBISHOP! So even if there is doubt about the confession, the decision falls to the Cardinal. Further, it is well established that subsidiarity applies as a general principal to decisions within the Church. The local ordinary by both the application of subsidiarity and the Canon is the proper person to decide.
You may not like the Cardinal’s decision - nor may the Archbishop - but the Cardinal was within his rights and not without good reason in light of the Senator making sacramental confession. I have, and am happy to continue to, pillory Bishops who play fast and loose with Canon Law. This is NOT such a case.
I am appalled at the way the Archbishop has handled this. Not because the Cardinal could have chosen to deny the Senator the funeral, but because the Archbishop seeks to substitute his judgment for another Bishops in contradiction to the Canon. Private counseling, or even the intervention of the Holy Father, is the proper step for the Archbishop - not some quasi-public oral statement to be misconstrued by the press and public. The Cardinal may have been wrong - I don’t deny that. I, too, believe that “pastoral” concerns too often are used to cover dissent as you intimate above. I do not see that at all in this case. In any event, the Archbishop was certainly wrong, however, at least in his methodology.
G
Godfollower
Guest
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. You’re quoting the Catechism of Trent, which was not a conciliar document. It was nothing more than a catechism – a worthy instructional document, to be sure, but that’s all – and it has been superseded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains no such statement.
As I posted earlier, the actual conciliar documents from Trent contain no requirement of public penance.
Furthermore, the part of the Catechism of Trent that you’re quoting refers to past practices concerning what penances had been required. Those are disciplinary practices about the Sacrament that can be changed by the Church; they are not integral parts of the Sacrament established by God. Moreover, even the document you’re quoting did not discuss public confession; it referred to public penance – which, as is clear from the rest of the text, meant satisfaction.
As the Catechism you cited notes, “Pastors should teach that all kinds of satisfaction are reducible to three heads: prayer, fasting and almsdeeds, which correspond to three kinds of goods which we have received from God, those of the soul, those of the body and what are called external goods.” None of those is required to be done in public. See generally Matthew 6:6 (“But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee”); Matthew 6:17-18 (“But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee”); Matthew 6:3-4 (“But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee”).
Not to mention the fact that Sen. Kennedy sought – and received – the Last Rites, including the Sacrament of Penance, the very night he died. The Church has always taken into account the sinner’s current abilities when determining the proper penance. A man who is dying won’t be required to hold a press conference or travel to Washington and write a bill proposing to overturn past laws.
Finally, let’s take a look at canon law, which I hope we all agree is binding:
CIC, Canon 1184, § 2 (emphasis added).
Show me where canon law says the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed, unless you disagree with him.
J
johnnykins
Guest
BTW just in case anyone wants to know what the Catechism of Trent really says about public penance:
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-p.htm
Satisfaction Deters Others From Sin
Besides, the example presented by our penitential practices serves as a lesson to others, how to regulate their lives and practice piety. Seeing the punishments inflicted on sin, they must feel the necessity of using the greatest circumspection through life, and of correcting their former habits.
The Church, therefore, with great wisdom ordained [Note - past tense as that was the early practice, but not current even at the time of Trent] that when anyone had committed a public crime, a public penance should[Note not “must”] be imposed on him, in order that others, being deterred by fear, might more carefully avoid sin in future. This has sometimes been observed even with regard to secret sins of more than usual gravity.
But with regard to public sinners, as we have already said, they were[Note past tense again!] never absolved until they had performed public penance. During the performance of this penance, the pastors poured out prayers to God for their salvation, and ceased not to exhort the penitents to do the same. In this respect, great was the care and solicitude of St. Ambrose, of whom it is related that many who came to the tribunal of Penance with hardened hearts were so softened by his tears as to conceive the sorrow of true contrition. But in process of time the severity of ancient discipline[Note - supports that the practice was “ancient” and not then current] was so relaxed and charity grew so cold, that in our days many of the faithful think inward sorrow of soul and grief of heart unnecessary for obtaining pardon, imagining that a mere appearance of sorrow is sufficient.
PUBLIC PENANCES SHOULD SOMETIMES BE GIVEN [Note - this was the then current advice of the Catechism - not a mandatory rule!]
Should it be deemed proper sometimes [Gee - “sometimes” sure doesn’t say “always”]to visit public crimes with public penance, and should the penitent express great reluctance of seek to escape from its performance, he should not be listened to** too readily**[Note - this implies he may be listened to!], but should be persuaded to embrace with cheerfulness and readiness that which will be salutary to himself and to others.
Some folks are just more Catholic than the Church itself!
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-p.htm
Satisfaction Deters Others From Sin
Besides, the example presented by our penitential practices serves as a lesson to others, how to regulate their lives and practice piety. Seeing the punishments inflicted on sin, they must feel the necessity of using the greatest circumspection through life, and of correcting their former habits.
The Church, therefore, with great wisdom ordained [Note - past tense as that was the early practice, but not current even at the time of Trent] that when anyone had committed a public crime, a public penance should[Note not “must”] be imposed on him, in order that others, being deterred by fear, might more carefully avoid sin in future. This has sometimes been observed even with regard to secret sins of more than usual gravity.
But with regard to public sinners, as we have already said, they were[Note past tense again!] never absolved until they had performed public penance. During the performance of this penance, the pastors poured out prayers to God for their salvation, and ceased not to exhort the penitents to do the same. In this respect, great was the care and solicitude of St. Ambrose, of whom it is related that many who came to the tribunal of Penance with hardened hearts were so softened by his tears as to conceive the sorrow of true contrition. But in process of time the severity of ancient discipline[Note - supports that the practice was “ancient” and not then current] was so relaxed and charity grew so cold, that in our days many of the faithful think inward sorrow of soul and grief of heart unnecessary for obtaining pardon, imagining that a mere appearance of sorrow is sufficient.
PUBLIC PENANCES SHOULD SOMETIMES BE GIVEN [Note - this was the then current advice of the Catechism - not a mandatory rule!]
Should it be deemed proper sometimes [Gee - “sometimes” sure doesn’t say “always”]to visit public crimes with public penance, and should the penitent express great reluctance of seek to escape from its performance, he should not be listened to** too readily**[Note - this implies he may be listened to!], but should be persuaded to embrace with cheerfulness and readiness that which will be salutary to himself and to others.
Some folks are just more Catholic than the Church itself!
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, let’s - and you can start with this:
*The Church, therefore, with great wisdom ordained that when anyone had committed a public crime, a public penance should be imposed on him, in order that others, being deterred by fear, might more carefully avoid sin in future. This has sometimes been observed even with regard to secret sins of more than usual gravity.
**But with regard to public sinners, as we have already said, they were never absolved until they had performed public penance. ***(Catechism of Trent)
You base your conclusion that what was said at Trent no longer applies because the current Catechism is silent on the issue? JPII understood things differently:
*the new Rite of Penance.(177) For the latter has made its own the whole of the teaching brought together by the Council of Trent, transferring it from its particular historical context (that of a resolute effort to clarify doctrine in the face of the serious deviations from the church’s genuine teaching), in order to translate it faithfully into terms more in keeping with the context of our own time. *(Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)
As for the Catechism of Trent not being a conciliar document, that is simply wrong (you really shouldn’t guess about these things).
The Fathers, therefore, of the General Council of Trent, anxious to apply some healing remedy to so great and pernicious an evil, were not satisfied with having decided the more important points of Catholic doctrine against the heresies of our times, but deemed it further necessary to issue, for the instruction of the faithful in the very rudiments of faith, a form and method to be followed in all churches by those to whom are lawfully entrusted the duties of pastor and teacher. (Introduction to the Catechism of Trent)
You (both) need to recognize that not everything the Church teaches is contained either in Canon Law or in the Catechism.
Ender
N
nickgreenwriter
Guest
I would love to know what all Ted’s political buddies at his funeral would think if CardinalOMalley would have stood up before mass and said,
“We are going to give this man a funeral only on the assumption that all those things he said over the years about abortion, he recanted. He said he was wrong all along and he was truely and deeply sorry that his actions helped kill millions”
…
Im sure the Cardinals decision was not accepted in this way, but as an acceptance of years of advancing the prochoice movement.
“We are going to give this man a funeral only on the assumption that all those things he said over the years about abortion, he recanted. He said he was wrong all along and he was truely and deeply sorry that his actions helped kill millions”
…
Im sure the Cardinals decision was not accepted in this way, but as an acceptance of years of advancing the prochoice movement.
J
johnnykins
Guest
Of course the self-same document says this:
PUBLIC PENANCES SHOULD SOMETIMES BE GIVEN [Note - this was the then current advice of the Catechism - not a mandatory rule!]
Should it be deemed proper sometimes [Gee - “sometimes” sure doesn’t say “always”]to visit public crimes with public penance, and should the penitent express great reluctance of seek to escape from its performance, he should not be listened to too readily[Note - this implies he may be listened to!], but should be persuaded to embrace with cheerfulness and readiness that which will be salutary to himself and to others.
So much for your reading of the Catechism of Trent.
G
Godfollower
Guest
Looks like johnnykins beat me to the rest of it, but as for this last part, of course not everything the Church teaches is contained in Canon Law or in the Catechism. But, and here’s the point:
Canon Law is binding!
And Canon Law states that
CIC, Canon 1184, § 2 (emphasis added).
The local ordinary (Cardinal O’Malley) was consulted, and he gave his judgment. Canon law states that his judgment “MUST” be followed! What’s so hard to understand about that?
E
Ender
Guest
Actually, what it said was that public penance should sometimes be given “even with **secret **sins”; it certainly didn’t say they should sometimes be given for public ones. What part of “*they were never absolved until they had performed public penance” *was unclear? And where did you come up with the idea that the Catechism of Trent contained only advice and not teachings that were binding on the entire Church? It was assuredly a requirement, not a suggestion. It was a requirement then and the same requirement remains today.
The issue seems to revolve around the question of what constitutes “some sign of repentance.” Based on the rules for administering the Sacrament of Penance, great public sin requires public penance for absolution to be given. Someone who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin cannot even receive the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (Last Rites) so, if without public penance one cannot receive absolution, it is reasonable to question why someone who has not been absolved of grave sin may receive an ecclesiastical funeral.
The mere fact that Kennedy received such a funeral - and certainly Last Rites as well - does not mean that he should have. There is no indication in any of Kennedy’s letters to indicate that he recanted his position on abortion or homosexual “marriage” nor have either his priest of Cardinal indicated that he ever did. Again, if absolution depends on public acknowledgment then his confessor would be obligated to make it known publicly that Kennedy had recanted. I don’t think anyone believes for a moment that he ever did which brings up the last part of rules regarding Christian burial - “yet so that all scandal is precluded.” His funeral was, and remains, an enormous scandal.
Ender
J
johnnykins
Guest
Which indicates clearly that your understanding is flawed - the seal of confession is ABSOLUTE! By you own words you prove your contention cannot be fact!
Enough with the Jansenism!
G
Godfollower
Guest
Right. What you’re saying is that you have doubt about whether Sen. Kennedy gave “some signs of repentance before death” (because you claim his repentance has to be public, while the Church teaches that merely summoning a priest at the time of death is sufficient, or even merely stating a desire to die in a state of grace). Okay, so let’s assume that your contention is enough under canon law to mean that there’s doubt about whether he gave “some signs of repentance before death;” fortunately, the Church in her wisdom has answered what happens next.
CIC, Canon 1184, § 2 (emphasis added).
Your doubt about whether Sen. Kennedy gave “some signs of repentance before death” has been resolved by the competent ecclesiastical authority, and that judgment MUST BE FOLLOWED.
If you’re obedient to mother Church, that is.
E
Ender
Guest
Jansenism? Goodness, what a highbrow insult. It’s not applicable but it certainly sounds impressive.
I understand the seal of the confessional. I also understand what public means. You still haven’t dealt with the fact that absolution cannot be given for grave public sins without public penance. Since Kennedy gave none, do you hold that he nonetheless received absolution?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
What you refer to here is what is said in 1184 that deals with funerals; it is not what is said with regard to the Sacrament of Penance. Absolution for grave, public sins requires public penance, not merely “some sign” of repentance.
It is certainly true that the Church will grant absolution to those who even indicate contrition, that is, who give “some sign” of it, but it is not true that this is all that is required in every circumstance. She makes the specific exception of those who have made public scandal and have not made public satisfaction to remove the scandal.
Given that there was no public penance there can be no doubt. There is no ecclesiastical authority that may alter this rule.
Don’t go there. Stick with “you’re an idiot”, it’s less insulting.
Ender
R
recondelta
Guest
I am not sure why this discussion of Public Penance for the late senstor is going on. The following two citations relative to the Council of Trent seem to make things clear:
traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Council/Trent/Twenty_Fourth_Session,_Decree-A.html
Chapter VIII
On public sinners, a public penance shall be imposed, unless the Bishop shall determine otherwise: a Penitentiary to be instituted in Cathedral Churches.
The apostle admonishes that those who sin publicly are to be reproved openly. When, therefore, any one has, publicly and in the sight of many, committed a crime, whereby there is no doubt that others have been offended and scandalized; there must needs be publicly imposed upon him a penance suitable to the measure of his guilt; that so those whom he has allured to evil manners by his example, he may bring back to an upright life by the testimony of his amendment. The bishop, however, may, when he judges it more expedient, commute this kind of public penance into one that is secret. Likewise, in all cathedral churches, where it can be conveniently done, the bishop shall appoint a penitentiary, annexing thereto the prebend that shall next become vacant, which penitentiary shall be a master, or doctor, or licentiate in theology, or in canon law, and forty years of age, or otherwise one who shall be found more suitable considering the character of the place; and, whilst hearing confessions in the church, he shall be meanwhile reputed as present in choir.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm
1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day.
traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Council/Trent/Twenty_Fourth_Session,_Decree-A.html
Chapter VIII
On public sinners, a public penance shall be imposed, unless the Bishop shall determine otherwise: a Penitentiary to be instituted in Cathedral Churches.
The apostle admonishes that those who sin publicly are to be reproved openly. When, therefore, any one has, publicly and in the sight of many, committed a crime, whereby there is no doubt that others have been offended and scandalized; there must needs be publicly imposed upon him a penance suitable to the measure of his guilt; that so those whom he has allured to evil manners by his example, he may bring back to an upright life by the testimony of his amendment. The bishop, however, may, when he judges it more expedient, commute this kind of public penance into one that is secret. Likewise, in all cathedral churches, where it can be conveniently done, the bishop shall appoint a penitentiary, annexing thereto the prebend that shall next become vacant, which penitentiary shall be a master, or doctor, or licentiate in theology, or in canon law, and forty years of age, or otherwise one who shall be found more suitable considering the character of the place; and, whilst hearing confessions in the church, he shall be meanwhile reputed as present in choir.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm
1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day.
- Status